11:46:37 <ttx> #startmeeting ptl_sync
11:46:38 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Sep  9 11:46:37 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
11:46:39 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
11:46:41 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ptl_sync'
11:46:44 <ttx> #topic Ceilometer
11:46:52 <eglynn> #link https://launchpad.net/ceilometer/+milestone/juno-rc1
11:47:09 <ttx> Are thos 3 blueprints the only FFEs you consider ?
11:47:20 * ttx parses the ML for any request
11:47:22 <eglynn> yes
11:47:55 <ttx> ok let's go through them, top to bottom
11:48:03 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/bigger-data-sql
11:48:21 <ttx> how far are we on this one?
11:48:33 <eglynn> the main patch to remornalize the resource schema is approved and working it way thru' the gate as we speak
11:48:47 <eglynn> *remnormalize :)
11:48:54 <ttx> ok, found it
11:49:08 <ttx> is there any followup patch?
11:49:18 <eglynn> the second patch to switch from sql-a ORM to sql-a core is still under review
11:49:34 <eglynn> Mike Bayer (sql-a author) has helpfully chimed into the discussion
11:49:51 <ttx> that would be https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113524/ ?
11:50:19 <eglynn> yes
11:50:24 <ttx> #info pending on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113524/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111313/
11:50:32 <eglynn> we need some further quantification of the performance gains, but it should be landable
11:50:33 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/paas-event-format-for-ceilometer
11:50:42 <ttx> what about this one
11:50:42 <eglynn> approved, working its way thru the gain
11:50:52 <eglynn> *thru the gate
11:51:10 <eglynn> that's documentation only, non-controversial
11:51:17 <ttx> ah ok
11:51:21 <ttx> #info Doc-only
11:51:25 <ttx> forgot about that
11:51:35 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/ipmi-support
11:51:51 <eglynn> impi-support is still the furthest away from landing
11:52:09 <eglynn> Edwin is engaging with the reviews, but the TZ latency adds to the delay
11:52:25 <ttx> that's the two reviews at https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/ipmi-support,n,z ?
11:52:27 <eglynn> last week I signalled that this one would be expected to land last of the 3
11:52:30 <eglynn> yes
11:52:46 <ttx> #info https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/ipmi-support,n,z -- a bit far away still
11:52:56 <ttx> ok, that looks in good shape
11:53:04 <ttx> Ideally the SQL stuff would merge this week
11:53:08 <eglynn> yep, agreed
11:53:12 <ttx> the IMI stuff can wait until next Tuesday
11:53:16 <ttx> IPMI*
11:53:22 <eglynn> yes, that's fair
11:53:32 <ttx> then we'll rediscuss it
11:53:55 <eglynn> do you have a concrete date in mind for cutting RC1?
11:54:06 <eglynn> ... or driven by actual progress in landing stuff?
11:54:23 <ttx> not really... it's normally when you empty your release-critical bug list
11:54:32 <eglynn> OK, got it
11:54:35 <ttx> so you should target the "must fix before release" bugs to rc1
11:54:47 <ttx> then depending on how fast you burn that list, we adapt
11:55:12 <ttx> ideally the RC1 would appear before the end of the month
11:55:34 <ttx> but if everything looks good and you have no bugs, then it could appear next week, I guess
11:55:40 <ttx> eglynn: about the design summit, one question
11:55:42 <eglynn> right, I'll give the currently targetted bug list another trawl and punt anything non-critical that doesn't look like it's getting traction
11:55:44 <eglynn> shoot
11:55:58 <ttx> If we do meetup-style on the Friday, would you rather have one full day, or only half a day?
11:56:23 <ttx> i.e. would half-a-day be sufficient ?
11:56:32 <eglynn> I'd rather take the full day, even if folks are a bit zombie-ish by the afternoon
11:56:43 <ttx> ok
11:56:47 <eglynn> (seeing as the pod-time will otherwise be limited)
11:56:54 <ttx> trying to do a trade-off between comfort and time
11:57:06 <eglynn> is there an alternative event in mind for the Friday afternoon, or more an early finish?
11:57:23 <ttx> you can spend time in other meetup rooms, or leave early
11:57:46 <ttx> though some will get a Friday afternoon half-day, that's the nature of the game
11:57:46 <eglynn> yeah, making it kinda optional like that would be fine
11:58:20 <ttx> ok. Anything you'd like to discuss at meeting today?
11:58:32 <eglynn> nope, I'm good
11:58:42 <ttx> eglynn: cool, talk to you later!
11:58:43 <eglynn> thank you for your time!
11:58:50 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: ready when you are
12:02:13 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, I'm here
12:02:16 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, morning
12:02:44 <ttx> #topic Sahara
12:03:00 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-rc1
12:03:01 <SergeyLukjanov> #link https://launchpad.net/sahara/+milestone/juno-rc1
12:03:07 <SergeyLukjanov> oops
12:03:14 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/edp-swift-trust-authentication
12:03:36 <ttx> Is that all contained in https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/edp-swift-trust-authentication,n,z ?
12:03:44 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, I think all CRs are on review for this blueprint
12:03:47 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, I think so
12:04:01 <ttx> and how is that going so far ?
12:04:35 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, it's already working while manually testing
12:04:46 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, and all patches have at least one +2 I think
12:04:58 <ttx> so just needs to adjust tests ?
12:05:03 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yup
12:05:16 <ttx> #info all in review @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/edp-swift-trust-authentication,n,z -- needs some tests tweaks but in good progress
12:05:26 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/cluster-persist-sahara-configuration
12:05:49 <SergeyLukjanov> two other blueprints are very small and easy and both are on review
12:05:57 <SergeyLukjanov> the last one is re docs
12:06:09 <ttx> is there more to it than https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/cluster-persist-sahara-configuration,n,z ?
12:06:14 <SergeyLukjanov> nope
12:06:23 <ttx> #info https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/cluster-persist-sahara-configuration,n,z on track
12:06:32 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/move-rest-samples-to-docs
12:06:35 <ttx> #info doc only
12:06:36 <SergeyLukjanov> we just need to persist some internal versions for validation, cluster-persist-sahara-configuration is about it
12:06:43 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: is that all your FFEs ?
12:06:47 <SergeyLukjanov> yup
12:07:17 <ttx> OK, so I think they should all land before next Tuesday
12:07:34 <SergeyLukjanov> ack, I think there will be no issues with it
12:07:35 <ttx> ideally the tust delegation part before end of week
12:07:46 <ttx> because it's a bit more disruptive
12:08:07 <SergeyLukjanov> do we need some additional actions to obtain FFE or I could just mail to the ML with the list of granted FFEs?
12:08:22 <ttx> no, you can email the list
12:08:48 <ttx> so next question would be about the Design Summit -- would Sahara like to have a meetup-like thing on the Friday ?
12:09:02 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, ack re FFEs
12:09:30 <ttx> Do you think half-a-day would suffice ? Or would you rather have the full day ? Benefit to half-day is ability to participate to some others
12:09:31 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, in addition to the slots on other day, or only friday slots/
12:09:44 <ttx> in addition to slots on Wed/Thu
12:09:57 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, half of day is enough for sahara
12:10:20 <ttx> ok, that way you can participate to the Infra/QA room
12:10:24 <ttx> :)
12:10:46 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: Anything you want to add to meeting agenda for today?
12:11:01 <SergeyLukjanov> just to ack - sahara will have some slots on wed/thu + we could have half day meetup like on friday?
12:11:44 <ttx> yes. Current plan would be to have cross-project stuff on Tuesday, traditional slots scheduled on Wed/Thu and meetups on Friday
12:11:59 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, ok, thx
12:12:01 <ttx> there just will be less "traditional" slots available overall
12:12:10 <ttx> since we have two days for all rather than 3
12:12:29 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, so, I think it'll be cool to have something meetup-like for sahara at friday in addition to the traditional stuff
12:12:38 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yeah, I understand
12:12:43 <SergeyLukjanov> and a few new projects
12:12:51 <ttx> yes, and limited space !
12:13:03 <ttx> my puzzle for the week, see if it can all fit
12:13:32 <SergeyLukjanov> heh, I'm sure you'll make the best schedule as always :)
12:13:50 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: so basically when brainstorming sessions you need to see which can have a clear slot and schedule presence, and which could be solved in the Friday informal discussion
12:14:01 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, got it
12:14:06 <ttx> usually the ones you want external feedback on are better as scheduled slots
12:14:22 <SergeyLukjanov> yeah, to have them in publicly available schedule
12:14:30 <SergeyLukjanov> and to have some fixed timing
12:14:32 <ttx> project internal policies otoh are a good fit for Friday
12:14:54 <SergeyLukjanov> yup, I think we have several good topics for friday
12:15:18 <ttx> also release objectives setting isa good topic for the Friday
12:15:28 <ttx> anyway, talk to you later!
12:15:36 <SergeyLukjanov> thank you!
12:15:40 <ttx> dhellmann: ready when you are
12:16:24 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, oh, I have one more q.
12:16:32 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: sure, shhot
12:16:35 <ttx> shoot*
12:16:45 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, could we think oslo and migrate to oslo.XXX libs before the rc1?
12:17:03 <dhellmann> ttx: good afternoon
12:17:37 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: depends how disruptive the change is... it's generally a good thing to adopt a library before release... but some of those adoptions may refactor a bit too much code
12:17:52 <ttx> so it's a case-by-case thing
12:18:00 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, I think that's ok if it's mostly the import chaning CRs
12:18:05 <ttx> dhellmann: opinion on that ^ ?
12:18:44 <dhellmann> I would be conservative about that for now. Plan for K-1 adoptions of anything you aren't already using, unless you have a serious issue that means you need a fix in a lib.
12:19:02 <dhellmann> and we do allow backporting fixes, too
12:19:09 <dhellmann> to the incubator, that is
12:19:44 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: does that answer your question?
12:19:52 <ttx> "only if you really need to" ?
12:19:58 <SergeyLukjanov> ack, for sahara we'll check do we really need to switch or sync oslo
12:20:06 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, yup
12:20:10 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, dhellmann, thx
12:20:15 <ttx> #topic Oslo
12:20:28 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/oslo-incubator/+milestone/juno-rc1
12:20:35 <dhellmann> SergeyLukjanov: some of the libs might be just as easy to adopt as a sync, if you have to do that anyway, so let's talk when you figure out how far out of date you are
12:21:09 <SergeyLukjanov> dhellmann, ack
12:21:17 <ttx> dhellmann: did we agree those graduate-* BPs should rather apear on the library project rather than on the -incubator?
12:21:41 <ttx> If yes I can move them
12:21:45 <ttx> or at least try
12:21:48 <dhellmann> yes, that makes sense
12:21:54 <dhellmann> I can move them after breakfast, too
12:23:43 <ttx> I'm on it
12:23:53 <ttx> That leaves us with... https://launchpad.net/oslo/+milestone/next-juno
12:24:26 <ttx> Some of those should probably be kilo at this point, right?
12:24:28 <dhellmann> ttx: I set up the pylockfile project yesterday, too, so it looks like all of these blueprints can move out of the incubator project to their library project
12:24:39 <ttx> dhellmann: ok, will do it once we are done
12:25:32 <dhellmann> I'll talk to josh about the taskflow thing. The amqp 1 driver is in oslo.messaging now but there's work left to be done. I suppose we should split that one.
12:25:47 <ttx> dhellmann: yeah
12:26:02 <ttx> I should create kilo series and next-kilo there
12:26:10 <dhellmann> the mysql driver one is blocked on a review in sqlalchemy-migrate, let me find that link
12:26:11 <ttx> so that stuff can be moved out
12:26:28 <dhellmann> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/110611/
12:27:28 <dhellmann> I'll put the semver work for pbr in kilo at this point
12:27:37 <dhellmann> I suppose that means moving the spec in oslo-specs, too
12:27:57 <ttx> dhellmann: I'll create the kilo series so that you can do the cleanup
12:28:04 <dhellmann> ok
12:28:41 <ttx> any question on the juno release side ?
12:28:55 <ttx> I think you have a good handle on all the lib releases now
12:29:13 <ttx> did you clarify when we could cut proposed/juno? there were some fixes pending iirc
12:29:36 <dhellmann> yeah, we have a list of things we'd like to merge, and I haven't checked them yet this morning
12:29:45 <dhellmann> should be soon
12:30:04 <ttx> dhellmann: ok, maybe track them using the -rc1 targeting
12:30:19 <ttx> that will let you have a clean list of targets you have to complete before rc1
12:30:22 <dhellmann> yeah, I'll make sure there are bugs for those
12:30:34 <ttx> and remove what's not a "need to have" fro the list
12:30:49 <ttx> dhellmann: ok, last question, about the design summit
12:31:31 <ttx> I hadn't planned an Oslo meetup on the Friday, since I think you should be covered with the cross-project stuff and the scheduled sessions... but did you want one ?
12:32:06 <ttx> it's tricky because you may want to visit the other rooms
12:32:28 <dhellmann> yeah, we might use the pods that day
12:32:45 <dhellmann> I think we'll have some things to decide that may take longer than the session slots
12:33:01 <ttx> ok, so a smaller space could be enough
12:33:19 <dhellmann> yeah, we probably only need room for a few of the cores to sit down together for those discussions
12:33:57 <ttx> dhellmann: ok, that's good feedback. I originally planned to recover pod space to make an additional meetup room, but it might make sense to keep some around and pack more than one project in
12:34:30 <dhellmann> oh, yeah, I assumed they would be available that day
12:34:44 <ttx> dhellmann: ok, anything for the meeting today ?
12:35:25 <dhellmann> we should tell folks that we're trying to have final library releases on 18 sept to give time for testing before the rest of the release candidates
12:35:53 <dhellmann> I only really expect a couple of updates at this point
12:36:01 <ttx> #info we're trying to have final library releases on 18 sept to give time for testing before the rest of the release candidates
12:36:01 <dhellmann> otherwise, that's it
12:36:15 <ttx> dhellmann: ok, maybe just re-mention it when I link to the log
12:36:19 <dhellmann> ok
12:36:26 <ttx> dhellmann: ok, thanks and talk to you later!
12:36:32 <dhellmann> have a good afternoon!
13:21:15 <dhellmann> ttx: I think I have all of those bugs/bps updated
13:23:26 * ttx quicklooks
13:23:39 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/oslo/+milestone/next-juno
13:25:39 <ttx> looks good
13:39:02 <mestery> ttx: I have our Neutron meeting from 1400-1500UTC today, can we move our 1:1 to immediately after that?
13:39:21 <mestery> ttx: I can ping you in-channel if the neutron meeting ends early.
13:40:22 <ttx> mestery: I'll be on a call then
13:40:38 <ttx> mestery: we can do it now if that works better for you
13:40:42 <mestery> ttx: OK, then lets just do it at our normal time and I'll multitask :)
13:40:47 <mestery> ttx: I am about to get on a call with markmcclain now :)
13:40:53 <ttx> hheh
13:41:10 <mestery> ttx: I'll multitask, no issues, thanks!
13:42:34 <ttx> mestery: my call may end early too. So maybe around 15:15
13:43:03 <mestery> ttx: Sure! Anytime after 1500 works for me, so ping me when you can. I've cleaned up RC1 LP now, it should be a quick sync.
14:07:06 <ttx> jgriffith: around?
14:13:57 <ttx> dolphm: ready when you are
14:15:38 <dolphm> ttx: o/
14:16:00 <ttx> #topic Keystone
14:16:04 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/juno-rc1
14:16:09 <ttx> All FFEs done I see
14:16:13 <dolphm> \o/
14:16:20 <ttx> you win!
14:16:37 <ttx> (at the same time it's pretty sane that keystone is feature-complete first)
14:16:52 <dolphm> ha, i'm not sure that's a good thing for the overall project
14:17:13 <ttx> no other FFE request pending?
14:17:22 <dolphm> we have two wishlist bugs in there, but that's all
14:17:44 <dolphm> we're going to discuss in today's meeting if we want to pursue them in juno, or delay
14:17:52 <ttx> ok
14:18:26 <ttx> so at this point it's pretty simple... compile a list of release-critical bugs, get them assigned and fixed.. and we can tag and open Kilo
14:19:04 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/juno-rc1 will be our target list. If you want to have "nice-to-haves" in the list, better use some tag
14:19:09 <dolphm> we're still seeing our bug count creep up with new bugs being opened though, so it's probably going to next week before we start counting in the right direction
14:19:16 <ttx> like "juno-rc-potential" or whatever
14:19:32 <dolphm> alright, we have a lot of those :)
14:19:37 <ttx> sure, the list should evolve over time anyway
14:19:59 <ttx> you can also just get the nice-to-have bugfixes in without necessarily make a list of them
14:20:11 <ttx> ok, questions on RC1?
14:20:29 <dolphm> what's the target date for RC's?
14:20:48 <dolphm> final RCs / release, i mean
14:21:09 <ttx> "when the buglist is empty."
14:21:17 <ttx> ideally before the end of the month obviously
14:21:29 <ttx> so we'll aggressively refine the list as we go
14:21:37 <dolphm> ack
14:21:47 <ttx> I'd say two weeks from now is a good time
14:21:59 <ttx> For the design summit, as you know we are considering meetup-like space for the friday. Do you think you'll need half a day or would prefer to have a full day ?
14:22:28 <dolphm> would a half day be only afternoon?
14:22:45 <ttx> yes, could be
14:23:04 <dolphm> i'd be fine with a half day - i imagine we'll be doing more reviews than anything else
14:23:23 <ttx> ok
14:23:35 <dolphm> i'm not strongly opinionated either way though
14:23:47 <dolphm> sounds like a useful schedule change either way
14:23:49 <ttx> I need to see how much spaces we need
14:23:54 <ttx> so I can work on layout
14:23:58 <dolphm> cool
14:24:11 <ttx> so more people asking for half-days means better spaces :)
14:24:42 <ttx> obviously big projects like Nova and Neutron wil use the full day anyway
14:30:43 <ttx> david-lyle: o.
14:31:25 <david-lyle> ttx: o/
14:31:34 <ttx> #topic Horizon
14:31:48 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/juno-rc1
14:32:11 <ttx> david-lyle: is that a complete list of the FFEs under consideration?
14:32:19 * ttx crosschecks with ML
14:32:29 <david-lyle> one was proposed on mailing list
14:32:39 <david-lyle> going to ask in an hour for another sponser
14:32:46 <ttx> "Support of Cinder QOS Specs in Horizon" ?
14:32:51 <david-lyle> 1 owner, 1 sponsor so far
14:32:52 <david-lyle> yes
14:33:10 <ttx> let's see if we have room for it
14:33:21 <ttx> let's go over those in your list
14:33:28 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/neutron-subnet-mode-support
14:33:28 <david-lyle> sure
14:33:32 <ttx> how is that one going?
14:33:53 <ttx> all patches I can find seem merged
14:34:08 <david-lyle> I need a status update, in an hour as to where support in the client is at
14:34:27 <ttx> ok, might just actually be finished?
14:34:29 <david-lyle> and determine if we need a client release or not
14:34:56 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/tagging
14:35:28 <david-lyle> there are 3 related bps
14:35:33 <david-lyle> that is one of them
14:35:49 <david-lyle> around the new meta-data catalog feature in glance
14:35:51 <ttx> +  	nova-metadata-flavors + nova-metadata-aggregates ?
14:35:56 <david-lyle> yes
14:36:09 <david-lyle> these are in good shape and have been previously reviewed
14:36:12 <ttx> how are they collectively coming up ? They sound a bit far away still
14:36:29 <ttx> How much time do you see them collectively take?
14:36:30 <david-lyle> we were just waiting on the client to release and a requirements bump
14:36:36 <david-lyle> that happened yesterday
14:36:49 <david-lyle> I hope to start merging them later today
14:37:07 <ttx> #info this one is related to nova-metadata-flavors and nova-metadata-aggregates
14:37:18 <david-lyle> this one has been on our radar for a while and new we were going to be time constrained due to the larger process
14:37:22 <ttx> david-lyle: ok, so ideally they would be all in by the end of the week?
14:37:34 <david-lyle> I feel confident about them landing by sometime Fri
14:37:42 <ttx> (all related 3)
14:37:43 <ttx> ok
14:37:45 <david-lyle> yes
14:38:12 <ttx> That means you still have "room" for another one if you have core support for it
14:38:16 <david-lyle> the QOS proposal contains 3 patches that haven't landed
14:38:43 <ttx> what is their current state?
14:38:46 <david-lyle> yeah, I need more core support
14:39:11 <david-lyle> they have had a few reviews, but not the same level of scrutiny as the meta-data patches
14:39:36 <ttx> how about we add it to the RC1 list, as "Deferred", so that we keep track of it ? When you finally decide, you can either put status back to "Needs code review", or remove the milestone target
14:39:49 <david-lyle> ok
14:40:11 <ttx> ok, that looks good.
14:40:27 <ttx> we'll make more drastic cuts next week if any are still open
14:40:33 <david-lyle> sure
14:40:50 <ttx> david-lyle: other questions on RC1?
14:41:13 <david-lyle> estimate for a target date?
14:41:35 <ttx> as soon as your targeted bug list is empty
14:41:44 <ttx> ideally in two weeks, in all cases before the end of the month
14:41:58 <david-lyle> ok, just wanted the window
14:42:15 <david-lyle> we have a lot of it would be nice bugs, but less that we can't live without
14:42:18 <ttx> the window is already opened, but I don't see the first ones happening before mid-Sept
14:42:50 <david-lyle> sounds reasonable
14:43:06 <ttx> david-lyle: about design summit -- we may be able to set up meetup-like space for the Friday. Would Horizon need a full day of informal discussions, or would half a day be enough ?
14:43:43 <ttx> (so that you can actually participate a bit to others meetups if you want to see what is coming your way)
14:44:01 <david-lyle> that would be in addition to how many more formalized slots?
14:44:27 <ttx> that would be in addition to "less" scheduled slots.
14:44:40 <ttx> since we would have two days instead of 3 for those
14:44:59 * ttx checks numbers
14:45:14 <david-lyle> I imagine a half-day would by enough, especially if we have the pods or other informal meeting areas
14:45:39 <ttx> in ATL you had 7 sessions, so in Paris you would have 4-5 scheduled sessions and at least half a day of unscheduled time
14:45:53 <ttx> to address "all other business"
14:46:29 <david-lyle> ttx: that sounds good
14:46:45 <ttx> cool. All depends how much time you need to reach alignment
14:46:55 <ttx> I think Horizon team is pretty well aligned generally
14:47:03 <david-lyle> typically
14:47:24 <ttx> david-lyle: ok, that's all I had -- anything you want to discuss at meeting tonight ? Any red flag ?
14:47:39 <david-lyle> I think we're set now that the glanceclient has released
14:47:48 <david-lyle> no blockers
14:48:14 <david-lyle> thanks!
14:51:31 <ttx> david-lyle: cool; thx
14:51:38 <ttx> jgriffith: still not around?
15:05:57 <mestery> ttx: Ready and waiting, ping when your call is complete.
15:07:57 <ttx> mestery: ack
15:08:03 <mestery> ttx: \o/
15:09:15 <ttx> mestery: probably in 10min
15:09:51 <mestery> ttx: OK, ping me here, I may step out for a bit while waiting. We'll connect soon though :)
15:28:33 <jgriffith> ttx: still here
15:28:33 <ttx> mestery: I'll ping you when I have a hole in my schedule
15:28:50 <ttx> jgriffith: ok, let me cover swift first
15:28:55 <mestery> ttx: Ack
15:28:57 <ttx> notmyname: around?
15:29:13 <notmyname> ttx: hi!
15:29:20 <ttx> #topic Swift
15:29:42 <ttx> notmyname: how is your next release coming up?
15:30:01 <notmyname> ttx: for project scheduling, we're still on for oct 6 for the RC, with the final on oct 16 for the integrated release
15:30:07 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/next-juno
15:30:13 <notmyname> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/PriorityReviews
15:30:25 <notmyname> that has a section for current open patches that I'm looking at to land for juno
15:31:27 <ttx> I'm a bit worried on the timing
15:31:36 <notmyname> oh yeah?
15:31:44 <ttx> maybe have a small safety buffer and plan RC earlier?
15:32:06 <notmyname> because of the length of the RC or because of getting stuff in for the RC?
15:32:15 <ttx> getting stuff in on the RC
15:32:42 <ttx> I guess we could shorten the RC baking period
15:33:00 <ttx> i.e. if last patch lands on Oct 8 it's not really a showstopper
15:33:31 <notmyname> we've got four weeks until the RC. I'm not too worried abotu getting those listed patches in master in that timeframe. they've all been in progress for a while
15:33:49 <ttx> notmyname: ok, if it's not too busy, Iguess it works
15:33:57 <notmyname> and, like you, I'm also ok with targeting the 6th and slipping a couple of days if necessary
15:34:16 <ttx> I just want to avoid an unpleasant plan B where we'd ship the previous release in Juno final :)
15:34:39 <notmyname> of course. I find that highly unlikely :-)
15:34:49 <ttx> ok!
15:34:52 <notmyname> I'd prefer to cut a release sooner with some of those missing before doing that :-)
15:35:01 <ttx> anything else you wanted to mention?
15:35:25 <notmyname> any other thoughts on doing any gap analysis follow-up before paris?
15:36:04 <ttx> notmyname: maybe we could try to squeeze it in one of the last TC meetings before reelection
15:36:09 <notmyname> also, I'm not too happy that the defcore group asked for designated sections feedback, and I gave it, and they didn't update their proposed havana sections
15:36:26 <ttx> notmyname: you probably didn't give the right feedback!
15:36:41 <notmyname> heh. I said their list was good!
15:37:00 <notmyname> ttx: ok, no real worries on the TC front. if there's time, I'd love to get a feel for things before paris, just to make sure the in-person things are time-efficient
15:37:06 <ttx> there are new meetings this week, if you want to get that remark on the record
15:37:15 <ttx> notmyname: I understand that
15:37:38 <ttx> notmyname: about design summit and the Friday meetup-like setup; would you rather have a full day or would a half-day be enough ?
15:38:00 <ttx> It's a bit of a two-edged sword
15:38:37 <notmyname> that meetup-like setup would be self-scheduled by who's there?
15:38:42 <ttx> yes
15:38:49 <notmyname> ie kinda like a mid-cycle meetup
15:38:57 <ttx> yes
15:39:12 <notmyname> is that the only time we'd have to meet as swift contributors?
15:39:32 <notmyname> formally
15:39:38 <ttx> there would be pods, but I doubt we ca, make space for one pod per project
15:39:46 <ttx> so the pods would be reusable
15:39:50 <notmyname> ok
15:40:01 <ttx> i.e. you would claim a table as your pod by putting your sign on it
15:40:11 <ttx> not sure that will scale perfectly
15:40:33 <ttx> in general, full day probably means less scheduled time, more unscheduled time.
15:40:41 <notmyname> and the other scheduled sessions on wed and thurs are for cross-project stuff?
15:40:45 <ttx> I still have to build a layout
15:41:11 <ttx> no. Tuesday for cross project, wed.thu our traditional scheduled sessions (just less of them) and Friday unscheduled time
15:41:23 <ttx> (will appear on schedule as "swift contributors meetup"
15:41:29 <notmyname> ah ok
15:41:44 <notmyname> so does each program get some scheduled time on wed.thurs?
15:41:48 <ttx> yes
15:41:58 <notmyname> ah ok
15:42:12 <ttx> just expect ~30% less, maybe more if you pick the full-day option
15:42:28 <notmyname> obviously the less time at the summit makes mid-cycle meetups more important
15:42:51 <ttx> agre
15:42:52 <ttx> e
15:43:09 <notmyname> but it seems that if there are already some scheduled sessions, plus the ad-hoc pods, a half-day on friday would probably be a good place to start
15:43:28 <ttx> you don't have to decide now, I just want to build a proposal based on this informal poll
15:43:39 <ttx> (proposal = room layout)
15:44:17 <ttx> ok, anything you want to discuss at meeting later today?
15:44:28 <notmyname> my cross-project questions are around defcore and gap analysis and paris scheduling. so no :-)
15:44:40 <ttx> ok, thanks!
15:44:45 <ttx> zaneb: around?
15:44:51 <zaneb> howdy
15:44:55 <ttx> #topic Heat
15:45:06 <ttx> #link https://launchpad.net/heat/+milestone/juno-rc1
15:45:22 <ttx> zaneb: hi! I'd like to have a quick look at the Heat FFEs
15:45:30 <zaneb> yes, good idea
15:45:37 <zaneb> we seem to have rather a lot :/
15:45:38 <ttx> zaneb: is the list on the rc1 page complete ?
15:45:51 * ttx crosschecks with ML
15:45:52 <zaneb> I sure hope so :D
15:46:12 <zaneb> there were none requested on the ML that I saw
15:46:26 <ttx> ok, so yes, 7 is a lot
15:46:56 <ttx> especially as none of those is finalized yet, so they were probably not "technical" FFEs that just needed a few more days to fight the gate
15:47:07 <ttx> let's visit them
15:47:12 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/deployment-multiple-servers
15:47:31 <ttx> all patches merged @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/deployment-multiple-servers,n,z
15:47:34 <ttx> anything more coming?
15:47:52 <zaneb> not that I know of
15:48:06 <zaneb> I'd have to check with stevebaker why he hasn't marked it complete already
15:48:27 <zaneb> but this one I'm pretty comfortable with as a FFE
15:49:13 <ttx> ok
15:49:20 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/cancel-update-stack
15:49:32 <ttx> this one seems to struggle a lot
15:49:54 <zaneb> yeah, this one is questionable
15:50:28 <zaneb> the good news is that it's a new feature and won't break any other features if you don't use it
15:50:34 <ttx> why is it something you really need to have in the release ?
15:50:41 <zaneb> but I fear it will be buggy if merged
15:50:59 <zaneb> it's a big deal for e.g. TripleO
15:51:02 <ttx> looks like a good candidate for not having an FFE
15:51:13 <zaneb> yeah, I agree
15:51:13 <ttx> well, they can start using it early in kilo
15:51:17 <ttx> they are not bound by releases
15:51:22 <zaneb> yep, they are trunck chasing anyway
15:51:28 <zaneb> trunk
15:51:35 <ttx> so if tripleO is the main consumer, that can wait kilo alright
15:51:54 <ttx> shall I target it to kilo-1 and shall you -2 those patches temporarily ?
15:52:09 <ttx> that will certainly increase the chances of the others ;)
15:52:39 <zaneb> yep, let's retarget it
15:53:02 <ttx> ok done
15:53:10 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/action-aware-sw-config
15:53:37 <ttx> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/action-aware-sw-config,n,z
15:53:53 <ttx> also a long patchseries -- any reason why we want it in release rather than after?
15:54:45 <zaneb> I'm not aware of a particular driver
15:54:58 <ttx> I'm ok with it if you think it can fully merge by the end of the week
15:55:04 <zaneb> other than that this was supposed to be a major feature for Juno
15:55:12 <zaneb> I think that may be possible
15:55:23 <ttx> yeah, which is why it needs some decent testing period
15:55:37 <ttx> ok, we'll revisit next week if it's not in yet
15:55:43 <zaneb> it mostly missed because Thomas was on vacation near the end of the cycle, and so not able to respond to some fairly minor comments
15:55:51 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/troubleshooting-low-level-control
15:55:58 <zaneb> IIRC it looks pretty solid
15:56:26 <ttx> hmm, not sure which review it hinges on
15:56:42 <ttx> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/troubleshooting-low-level-control,n,z has 3 abandoned links
15:57:12 <zaneb> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109284/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109042/
15:57:30 <ttx> ,pt the others on https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bug/1224828,n,z ?
15:57:34 <ttx> not*
15:57:52 <zaneb> the others are the client support
15:57:59 <ttx> ah right
15:58:07 <zaneb> which are obviously necessary, but not tied to this release cycle
15:58:18 <ttx> yes, looks pretty solid, let's give it a week
15:58:22 <zaneb> ok
15:58:29 <ttx> improving debuggability definitely helps
15:58:32 <zaneb> I'd say it's fairly solid but not critical for Juno
15:58:44 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/functional-tests
15:58:57 <ttx> that's probably not affected by FFE, as it's only testing?
15:59:05 <zaneb> this could almost be moved to ongoing
15:59:17 <ttx> hmm, good idea
15:59:37 <ttx> ok moved
15:59:50 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/implement-ec2eip-updatable
16:00:13 <ttx> Only https://review.openstack.org/#/c/118562/ left?
16:01:30 <zaneb> looks like it, and it already got approved once
16:01:38 <ttx> ok, let's keep it then
16:01:44 <ttx> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/handle-update-for-security-groups
16:02:03 <ttx> 2 reviews left @ https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/handle-update-for-security-groups,n,z
16:02:11 <ttx> looks pretty close too
16:02:25 <ttx> let's keep it for another week?
16:02:35 <zaneb> yep
16:02:37 <zaneb> agree
16:02:45 <ttx> Those two "low" priority ones, would be better if they merged before the end of the week, rather than before next Tuesday
16:03:03 <ttx> just so that we get them off to testing
16:03:25 <zaneb> yeah, hopefully we can get them through the gate quickly
16:03:33 <zaneb> I will try to review them myself today
16:03:52 <ttx> zaneb: I think Heat could use a full day of meetup-like space on the Design Summit Friday. Is that your opinion too ?
16:04:15 <zaneb> yeah, we would definitely use it if we can get it :)
16:04:28 <zaneb> plenty of things to talk about
16:04:33 <ttx> yep
16:04:41 <ttx> ok, anything for the meeting later?
16:04:51 <zaneb> don't think so
16:04:57 <ttx> ok, talk to you later then
16:05:06 <zaneb> thanks o/
16:05:09 <ttx> jgriffith: still around?
16:05:15 <jgriffith> ttx: yup
16:05:22 <ttx> #topic Cinder
16:05:25 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/juno-rc1
16:05:44 <ttx> So I think I saw quite a few other requests on the list
16:05:58 <ttx> those are the ones we already granted on technicalities iirc
16:05:59 <jgriffith> ttx: you did, frankly my response has been pack sand
16:06:12 <ttx> how are those SMB ones going ?
16:06:13 <jgriffith> ttx: other core members however are a bit less jaded
16:06:25 <jgriffith> I think they're going to finally go today
16:06:32 <jgriffith> If we can just get them through Gate
16:06:38 <jgriffith> it's been a bit of a struggle
16:06:44 <ttx> ok, let's keep them then
16:06:54 <jgriffith> yeah, I def feel fine with those
16:06:57 * ttx has a quick look for the cinder FFE requests on the ML
16:07:06 <jgriffith> ttx: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-cinder-approved-ffes
16:07:13 <jgriffith> ttx: a "hopefully" consolidated list
16:07:37 <jgriffith> All vendor/driver *features*
16:07:50 <jgriffith> I've been pretty harsh, maybe I shouldn't be
16:08:13 <ttx> how ready are they?
16:08:29 <jgriffith> so to be fair their pretty close
16:08:33 <jgriffith> and rather simple
16:08:34 <ttx> I'm fine with 2/3 more if they can land this week
16:08:43 <jgriffith> the only one that's new is Duncan't backup state reset
16:08:56 <jgriffith> ttx: My cutoff is this week for features regardless
16:09:11 <jgriffith> I seem to be much more literal about Freeze than anybody else
16:09:35 <ttx> maybe pick 2/3 that are self-contained
16:09:53 <ttx> backup state reset doesn't sound self-contained
16:10:04 <jgriffith> yeah, that's the only "new" one
16:10:36 <jgriffith> I suppose since he started that back in Aug I can have some sympathy, but I don't think it's that "important"
16:10:45 <ttx> I'm fine with not accepting any, too. After all we had feature freeze and they missed it by more than a finger
16:10:47 <jgriffith> I'll talk with Duncan and see why he ranks t
16:11:01 <jgriffith> yeah, it's one thing when it's a day or two
16:11:13 <jgriffith> but we're defeating the point now :(
16:11:14 <jgriffith> IMO
16:11:25 <jgriffith> anyway....
16:11:31 <ttx> none of those *needs* to be in
16:11:39 <jgriffith> Nope, not a one
16:11:56 <jgriffith> I'm fine with giving inflight items til Friday
16:12:00 <jgriffith> to Merge
16:12:06 <jgriffith> after that I'm done
16:12:13 <ttx> so I'm fine with 0-3, I'd prefer to stick to the self-contained ones, and in all cases Friday is the last day
16:12:19 <jgriffith> I have features for my driver I'd love to put in, but ain't happening
16:12:40 <jgriffith> ttx: agreed, I'll have a look at backup state change and decide today
16:13:01 <jgriffith> Unless there's feedback that alot of people are having "stuck" jobs I don't see it as justified
16:13:27 <ttx> next question - about the design summit Friday "contributors meetup" space. Would you rather have half a day of Cinder meetup (in addition to regular scheduled sessions), or a full day ?
16:13:47 <ttx> jgriffith: some people have been complaining that Cinder is always on the last day, so those may prefer the half-day option
16:13:48 <jgriffith> by Friday, probably a half day :)
16:14:06 <jgriffith> yeah, I get a lot of feedback about the Friday thing for some reason
16:14:28 <ttx> ok, I'll try to place you in the morning, and give a decent number of "scheduled" slots
16:14:30 <jgriffith> ttx: let's do the 1/2 day option
16:14:33 <jgriffith> ok, great
16:14:47 <ttx> anything to add to meeting agenda for tonight?
16:14:58 <jgriffith> nope, just plugging along
16:15:10 <ttx> jgriffith: awesome! thanks for your time.
16:15:16 <ttx> SlickNik: around?
16:15:21 <SlickNik> o/
16:15:23 <ttx> #topic Trove
16:15:36 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/trove/+milestone/juno-rc1
16:15:38 <jgriffith> ttx: thank you!
16:15:56 <ttx> is the oslo.messaging migration your last open FFE ?
16:16:10 <SlickNik> Yes, that's the only one we've got left.
16:16:17 <ttx> how is it going ?
16:16:47 <SlickNik> Checked in with Sergey, and amrith and they're on track to get it done by end of this week.
16:17:53 <ttx> SlickNik: ok, sounds good
16:18:45 <SlickNik> I'll be checking in on the work again tomorrow to make sure things are going as planned (and to see where I can help as needed).
16:19:53 <ttx> ok. Any question on final release process ?
16:21:48 <SlickNik> Nope,
16:21:52 <SlickNik> Mentioned this to you last week, but just wanted to remind you: we'd like to use a specs repo going forward in Kilo, so I'm going to be doing the infra work to get that set up this week.
16:22:21 <ttx> ok
16:22:49 <ttx> SlickNik: as far as design summit goes, I think Trove could opt for a half-day of contributors meetup
16:23:01 <ttx> since you aren't that many, convergence is not that hard to obtain?
16:23:46 <SlickNik> ttx: It depends on the issues, but a half day should be okay I think. How many sessions would that give us to work with?
16:24:00 <ttx> I still have to check the numbers
16:24:00 <SlickNik> (Some issues are more contentious than others)
16:24:05 <ttx> that would result in more time overall
16:24:34 <ttx> you would have anumber of scheduled slots, then a half-day for the more informal discussion
16:25:14 <SlickNik> Ah, gotcha. Yes, I think that would be fine.
16:25:15 <ttx> Something like 4 scheduled slots and a half-day of meetup
16:25:35 <ttx> ok, thanks
16:25:47 <ttx> anything you want to discuss at cross-project meeting today?
16:26:11 <SlickNik> Nothing in particular — that's all I had.
16:26:23 <ttx> mestery: would you be available around 19:30 UTC?
16:26:28 * ttx could use a break now
16:26:38 <ttx> SlickNik: thx!
16:26:42 <mestery> ttx: Yes!
16:26:46 <mestery> ttx: I'll be here, thanks!
16:26:51 <ttx> mestery: ok, see you then :)
16:27:00 <SlickNik> ttx: thank you! Talk to you later. :)
19:28:41 <ttx> mestery: around?
19:28:47 <mestery> ttx: o/
19:28:55 <ttx> #topic Neutron
19:28:57 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-rc1
19:29:16 <ttx> 7 left open
19:29:24 <mestery> Yes
19:29:30 <mestery> Status on each one quickly perhaps?
19:29:34 <ttx> yes please
19:29:52 <mestery> L3 HA is very close, I have at least two cores focused on it and they expect it to land before Friday.
19:30:08 <mestery> ipset has two patches left, one of which is a functional test. I expect that one to land by Thursday
19:30:38 <mestery> retarbetable functional testing is being iterated tomorrow, the author thinks it can land soon as well. I tend to agree.
19:30:55 <mestery> FWaaS and DVR: 3 cores covering it, I believe it should be in the queue tomorrow as well.
19:31:16 <mestery> Plugin specific migrations: Realistically with this one we're going to land one of the patches there and then move it out of Juno and the rest can land in Kilo.
19:31:29 <mestery> L3 metering: This one should be in the queue tomorrow.
19:31:45 <mestery> Resource autodeletion: It's in the queue now (may have merged, will check once status is done)
19:31:49 <mestery> And that's it.
19:31:51 <mestery> The other 4 merged
19:31:54 <mestery> all low priority
19:32:06 <ttx> hmm, ok. I think that's doable and will have limited impact
19:32:13 <mestery> Cool!
19:32:29 <mestery> I've worked hard with the neutron cores to make it have as minimal distruption as possible
19:32:45 <ttx> obviously next week we'd reconsider, in case they take longer than expected
19:32:56 <ttx> because everybody needs to switch to bugfixes asap
19:33:09 <mestery> Exactly
19:33:14 <mestery> We're heavy on those as well
19:33:17 <ttx> mestery: any topic for the meeting today?
19:33:18 <mestery> The team has been working on bugs in paralle
19:33:20 <mestery> parallel
19:33:24 <mestery> Nothing at this time no
19:33:34 <ttx> ok, I think you are covered then
19:33:38 <mestery> Thanks ttx!
19:33:40 <ttx> markwash__: around?
19:33:47 <markwash__> ttx: ish!
19:34:02 <ttx> markwash__: time for a quick Glance status?
19:34:09 <markwash__> yup
19:34:10 <ttx> #topic Glance
19:34:18 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/juno-rc1
19:34:33 <ttx> So that's two already on the map, from j3
19:34:39 <ttx> + a boatload proposed on the ML
19:34:40 <markwash__> yeah, but I think they landed
19:34:50 * ttx cheks
19:35:30 <markwash__> it looks like we're missing the two flavio did in that list (which also have landed)
19:35:40 <markwash__> I think we're done with FFE once I update the list
19:35:43 <ttx> async-glance-workers seem to still be open
19:36:01 <ttx> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/85211/ ?
19:36:28 <markwash__> yeah I thought that one isn't really intended for juno at this point, however
19:36:37 <markwash__> I'll clarify with the bp owner in a little bit
19:37:01 <ttx> so there are two that are donce and should be added to list?
19:37:04 <ttx> done*
19:37:22 <markwash__> yes, searching
19:37:52 <ttx> [3] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/create-store-package
19:37:52 <ttx> [4] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/restartable-image-download
19:37:54 <ttx> ?
19:38:27 <markwash__> yes
19:38:32 <markwash__> check juno-rc1 again
19:39:05 <markwash__> at this point we're just down to bug fixes and cleanup, but none are specifically targeted yet
19:39:06 <ttx> ok
19:39:11 <markwash__> we have a bug day on thursday
19:39:20 <markwash__> that will focus on cleanup and triaging critical bugs
19:39:29 <ttx> what about the FFEs requested for refactoring-glance-logging and use-common-service-framework ?
19:39:40 <ttx> I think it's too late for refactoring personally
19:39:41 <markwash__> use-common-service-framework was deferred
19:40:03 <markwash__> ttx: the glance logging change seemed kind of minor to me
19:40:10 <ttx> looking into it
19:40:18 <markwash__> it is basically just adjusting levels and using the correct internationalization routines in more places
19:40:32 <markwash__> ttx: but I"m not sure if that messes with string freeze ?
19:40:33 <ttx> ok, let's add it then
19:40:47 <markwash__> +1
19:40:50 <ttx> done
19:41:02 <ttx> i'll let you reply to him
19:41:23 <ttx> so async-processing, should we just move it out ?
19:41:43 <ttx> you said "that one isn't really intended for juno at this point"
19:41:59 <markwash__> I'd like to pressure folks to split that bp into "what was done in juno" and what remains
19:42:04 <markwash__> so that we have a clear picture
19:42:18 <ttx> markwash__: ok, let's do that
19:42:24 <markwash__> I think that means we can mark it as completed for juno-rc1 and open a new spec/bp for klieber
19:42:35 <ttx> #info async-glance-workers to be split between completed and todo parts
19:43:03 <ttx> ok done
19:43:34 <ttx> markwash__: that is all. talk to you later!
19:43:39 <markwash__> great, thanks ttx!
19:45:57 <ttx> #endmeeting