21:01:05 <danwent> #startmeeting quantum
21:01:07 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Oct  1 21:01:05 2012 UTC.  The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:01:08 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:01:08 <amotoki> o/
21:01:09 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'quantum'
21:01:17 <danwent> #link agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings
21:01:37 <danwent> should be a pretty short meeting today… I assume people are still recovering from the release :)
21:01:58 <danwent> #info Quantum Folsom release is out!  Congrats to the whole team!
21:02:03 <zykes-> danwent: or just hiding ;)
21:02:04 <nati_ueno> hi
21:02:08 <nati_ueno> Congrat!
21:02:47 <danwent> #info all bugs found that may be considered for backport to Folsom should be fixed in master and have the bug tagged with 'folsom-backport-potential'
21:02:49 * markvoelker cheers
21:02:58 <danwent> here is the current list: https://bugs.launchpad.net/quantum/+bugs?field.tag=folsom-backport-potential
21:03:31 <arosen> hi
21:03:54 <danwent> so far there is nothing i've seen of significant concern, so we'll hold off on a stable release until either a bunch of small things pop-up, or there is a major issue that we feel we need to address urgently.
21:04:44 <danwent> #help  we're looking for people to help manage the stable/folsom branch and keep track of what fixes need to be back-ported, decide on timing of stable releases, etc.
21:04:55 <danwent> I believe rkukura or garyk worked on this in the past
21:05:15 <danwent> neither of them seem to be here today, but if others are interested in helping out as well, let me know.  the more the merrier in my opinion.
21:05:47 <danwent> There was also a ton of great work that went into creating content for the openstack docs in the past week.
21:06:14 <danwent> I believe the major gaps we outlined have for the most part been closed.
21:06:25 <annegentle> nice job all!
21:06:57 <danwent> #info any remainning doc issues should be filed against the openstack-manuals project and tagged with 'quantum' (for the quantum admin guide) and 'netconn-api' for the API guide.
21:07:07 <danwent> here are the existing links: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bugs?field.tag=quantum
21:07:12 <danwent> https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bugs?field.tag=netconn-api
21:07:40 <amotoki> what is the status of netconn-api?
21:07:54 <danwent> we'll want to be very vigilent that if someone asks something on the mailing list, and we can't answer by pointing to a section of either of those two docs, then we should probably be filing a bug to add that content to one of the guies.
21:08:04 <danwent> salv-orlando: ?
21:08:19 <salv-orlando> amotoki: we have a final patch in WIP for l3 extension
21:08:29 <salv-orlando> and then we still need to document the Quota extension
21:08:36 <amotoki> have you solved the problem in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13299/?
21:08:42 <danwent> salv-orlando: can you create netconn-api bugs for those if there aren't already?
21:08:42 <salv-orlando> Apart from that, it is complete (pending bugs and errors that you guys might find)
21:08:52 <danwent> or rather openstack-manuals bugs, tagged with netconn-api
21:08:57 <salv-orlando> danwent: already created, probably not tagget
21:09:04 <danwent> ah, makes sense.
21:09:24 <salv-orlando> amotoki: should have been transient failure as this morning a patch dependent on this built fine. Let me do a recheck.
21:09:31 <danwent> Ok, any other topics to discuss on Folsom release or docs?
21:09:32 <ijw> Per what I said earlier today on the list, if there's not Python API stuff in the docs then there probably ought to be (I haven't looked at the Quantum docs specifically)
21:09:45 <amotoki> sound good.
21:10:46 <danwent> ijw: i'm not sure what the right place for such content is.
21:11:15 <ijw> Yeah, indeed.  Not with the web API itself, I guess, but it ought to be somewhere.
21:11:17 <danwent> I want to keep the API spec relatively clean and focused on the rest calls.  I assume you're looking for something that documents the python bindings?
21:11:24 <danwent> ijw: agreed...
21:11:24 <salv-orlando> danwent, ijw: looking at your email seems you're looking for developer docs
21:11:38 <danwent> well, there's two types of that salv-orlando
21:11:54 <danwent> one is for building quantum itself, and another is for calling its APIs, but via python bindings
21:12:08 <danwent> i thought ijw  was talking about API bindings for python
21:12:11 <salv-orlando> I meant the second one - aimed at developers wishing to use quantum
21:12:12 <annegentle> all the colors of the rainbow developers :) Really just red (API) or blue (Python).
21:12:24 <annegentle> or the purple ones who are both
21:13:14 <ijw> I'm talking about the Python bindings - I think there should be a straightforward docstring extraction (assuming anyone gives the docstrings love when they write things) plus an explanation of how the API is used, and a pointer so that it can all be found.  But I'll take what I can get ;)
21:14:01 <annegentle> ijw: I think the current problem your issue raises is that the docstrings are not getting love in certain projects - haven't examined quantum to know if they <3 docstrings
21:14:07 <danwent> I think the reality is that there is no documented, stable API other than the webservice API itself.
21:14:27 <ijw> annegentle: actually, there's the open question of whether they should be called at all - nothing says it's public
21:14:54 <annegentle> ijw: and "public" is whether the endpoint is public (based on what the cloud provider deploys)?
21:15:00 <danwent> we could push for certain APIs within python-quantumclient to be those APIs, but at this point, I'm not aware of stabilitization promises around that.
21:15:03 <danwent> I think this is a good point though
21:15:08 <annegentle> ijw: or governed by policy (again from the cloud provider)
21:15:18 <amotoki> ijw: horizon/api/quantum.py is a good example if you want to know how to use python-quantumclient.
21:15:25 <ijw> 'Public' as in 'we expect to maintain compatibility'
21:15:53 <ijw> annegentle: since the Python bindings are relatively divorced from the web API you have to have some assurance that they're going to be stable.
21:16:04 <annegentle> ijw: ok, understood
21:16:24 <danwent> this might be a good topic for future discussion, as I agree that (a) there is potential value in a stable python API and (b) that we make no such promises at this point.
21:16:34 <danwent> ijw: do you want to discuss this @ summit?
21:16:44 <danwent> or simply create a BP around it if you don't think there's much to discuss
21:16:58 <ijw> Yes, and I don't think it's just a quantum thing, so a wider audience might be a good idea
21:17:43 <danwent> ijw: yeah, ideally we'd have consistency in terms of the behavior of these python APIs across projects.  I suspect that is far from the case right now.
21:18:01 <danwent> ijw: definitely consult with Yong on this too, as he created most of the latest rev of the client, I think.
21:18:19 <danwent> (he doesn't seem to be here today… post folsom vacation I guess)
21:18:42 <danwent> Ok, so moving on...
21:18:46 <salv-orlando> danwent: or probably finally enjoying the comfort of his bed at 5 in the morning :)
21:19:00 <danwent> perhaps :P
21:19:15 <danwent> #topic quantum tempest + gating
21:19:58 <danwent> I wanted to revive this discussion now that folsom is out.  I think its probably the most important thing our team needs to be focused on now, so I wanted to figure out where we were, and what we needed to plan for at the summit
21:20:02 <danwent> mnewby nati_ueno any info?
21:20:31 <nati_ueno> Here is meeting log http://etherpad.openstack.org/quantum-tempest
21:20:50 <nati_ueno> We are discussing after openstack-qa meeting
21:21:03 <danwent> nati_ueno: ah, ok, there's another meeting coming up soon?  when is that?
21:21:17 <danwent> i saw the existing tempest review expire, so I wasn't sure if people were still actively working on it.
21:21:34 <nati_ueno> It is not formal meeting
21:21:59 <nati_ueno> danwent: Ah sorry. I was in bussiness trip to Japan. So I haven't progressed the work yet.
21:22:09 <danwent> nati_ueno: can you work with mnewby, folks from tempest, and the CI team to make sure we have a session on this at the summit?
21:22:22 <nati_ueno> danwent: Sure
21:22:32 <danwent> we can put it on the quantum track and invite others
21:22:50 <nati_ueno> Great
21:23:03 <danwent> #todo nati_ueno create summit session around quantum tempest efforts + gating
21:23:18 <danwent> #topic grizzly summit
21:23:28 <danwent> #info http://www.openstack.org/summit/san-diego-2012/
21:23:37 <danwent> summit is two weeks away
21:23:58 <danwent> we will want session schedule finalized by early next week
21:24:18 <danwent> (well, sometimes individual slots change last minute, but our general set of topics should be set by then)
21:24:34 <danwent> #info quantum summit sessions are mon/tues/wed
21:24:41 <danwent> no sessions thurs
21:24:58 <danwent> #info  to propose sessions, use: http://summit.openstack.org/
21:25:10 <danwent> a couple reminders here, as people always go a bit crazy around summit time
21:25:42 <danwent> first, its not about who proposes a session first… if multiple people want to talk on the same topics, we'll commonly merge sessions one all sessions have been proposed
21:26:54 <danwent> we need a healthy balance of "community projects" vs. "shiny objects"… topics like system test, horizon integration, HA improvements, etc. are very important to average users
21:27:21 <danwent> as I mentioned before, we really need to focus on system test/ tempest + gating.  to me this is the biggest gap for us right now.
21:27:51 <danwent> one particular "shiny object" that peopel are already creating a lot of content around is "load-balancer-as-a-service"
21:28:09 <danwent> #info content for load-balancer as a service discuss is being put here: http://wiki.openstack.org/Quantum/LBaaS
21:28:15 <danwent> feel free to add your own thoughts
21:28:35 <salv-orlando> I would also add "do not refresh the web page after submitting a session" :)
21:29:04 <amotoki> I made a mistake already :-(
21:29:18 <danwent> over the past few months I've been keeping a list of good community topics… i'll send out an email with those items.
21:29:39 <danwent> I'll be asking people to organize sessions around many of those topics.
21:29:56 <danwent> any other questions/comments on summit proposals?
21:30:21 <zykes-> danwent: which one of the lbaas projects is it? the mirantis one or ?
21:30:42 <nati_ueno> I would like to propose quantum-scheduler session
21:30:43 <danwent> zykes-: there are several different proposals for lbaas, all on that page.
21:30:50 <nati_ueno> It may be merged to HA session
21:31:22 <danwent> nati_ueno: sure, just propose session for now, and we'll figure out what sessions may make sense to merge once that is done.
21:31:30 <nati_ueno> danwent: I got it
21:31:34 <danwent> #topic open discussion
21:31:47 <danwent> any other comments/questions? or will this be the shortest meeting ever? :)
21:32:24 <danwent> ok, that's a wrap.  thanks folks.  look for email about community topics for the summit
21:32:43 <danwent> we'll finalize the list early next week.
21:32:48 <danwent> #endmeeting