21:00:42 <danwent> #startmeeting quantum
21:00:43 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Jan  7 21:00:42 2013 UTC.  The chair is danwent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:44 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:46 <arosen1> hi
21:00:46 <SumitNaiksatam> Greetings to all for the new year!
21:00:46 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'quantum'
21:00:53 <mnewby> hi
21:00:56 <danwent> #link agenda: http://wiki.openstack.org/Network/Meetings
21:01:06 <danwent> #topic announcements
21:01:45 <danwent> #info many thanks to gongysh for all of this work answering questions on https://answers.launchpad.net/quantum/ .  I'd encourage everyone to subscribe to notifications and help out
21:02:08 <nati_ueno> Hi!
21:02:09 <danwent> #info grizzly-2 branch point is tomorrow
21:02:36 <danwent> all feature code for G-2 must be merged at that point.  beyond that time, only 'critical' or 'high' bugs will be backported for the G-2 release
21:02:45 <alexpilotti> hi
21:02:57 <danwent> #info heads up that the next folsom stable release will be end of january
21:03:33 <danwent> #info devstack gate for quantum is currently broken due to webob version conflict with other projects.  we believe this patch (already approved) will fix it: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19138/
21:03:52 <danwent> (we are still waiting on gating to merge it, and confirm that things are fixed)
21:03:58 <emagana> danwent: Any "new features"/plugins will NOT be accepted after that?
21:04:07 <danwent> any other annoncements?
21:04:21 <danwent> emagana: this is only with respect to going into the "G-2 release"
21:04:29 <danwent> not grizzly as a whole (if that is your question)
21:04:39 <danwent> G-2 is frozen tuesday, and released on thursday
21:04:53 <danwent> once G-2 is frozen and branch, G-3 opens up.
21:05:02 <emagana> danwent: got it! I misunderstood you. Thanks
21:05:11 <mlavalle> danwent: I did some devstack testing this weekend and it failed with webob 1.2.3
21:05:26 <danwent> mlavalle: yes, that is what the above patch is supposed to address
21:05:34 <danwent> #topic grizzly-2 milestone release
21:05:36 <mlavalle> ok
21:06:06 <danwent> ok, main goal for this meeting is to make sure we can close out the several patches we still have in review for G-2 by tomorrow
21:06:16 <danwent> markmcclain: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-db-upgrades
21:06:28 <danwent> are we waiting on merge of quota change first? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19039/
21:06:28 <markmcclain> yes… just pushed a bunch of cleanup changes
21:06:42 <danwent> main review is here: https://review.openstack.org/18341
21:06:42 <markmcclain> no.. we can do it after
21:07:02 <markmcclain> the quota ext makes a slight change that we can handle as a migration
21:07:11 <danwent> markmcclain: ok.
21:07:36 <salv-orlando> I approved 19039… did I do wrong?
21:07:41 <danwent> markmcclain: so my understanding is that we are good to merge on the patch, thoughs salv-orlando is going to finish his testing before we merge.
21:07:53 <markmcclain> salv-orlando: 19039
21:07:57 <markmcclain> is fine to merge
21:08:02 <salv-orlando> ok, thanks
21:08:03 <markmcclain> we just should backport it stable
21:08:11 <markmcclain> sorry *should not*
21:08:14 <salv-orlando> If everything goes according to plan we can merge db upgrades in a few hours
21:08:24 <salv-orlando> I am rebasing my patch with db changes on top of it already
21:08:31 <danwent> salv-orlando: and we know how everything tends to go according to plan :P
21:08:50 <markmcclain> I also updated instructions how to init migrations with a folsom db
21:08:58 <markmcclain> *existing
21:09:03 <salv-orlando> No this time it's true :) - thanks to what mark said above ^ ^
21:09:10 <gongysh> one question about db migration, why not use the tech the same as nova?
21:09:40 <danwent> gongysh: i believe this is discussed in the spec
21:09:50 <markmcclain> gongysh: we need the ability to control the order of migrations a little more than what sqlalchemy allows
21:10:04 <markmcclain> sorry sqlalchemy-migrations
21:10:13 <gongysh> ok, got it.
21:10:18 <gongysh> thanks
21:10:58 <danwent> next up.  nati_ueno https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-security-groups-iptables
21:11:18 <nati_ueno> danwent: I got +1 from gary, akihiro, yong
21:11:22 <danwent> nati_ueno: are we still dealing with the issue of the noopfirewalldirver on nova?
21:11:43 <nati_ueno> danwent: It is not related with linuxbridge one
21:12:01 <danwent> nati_ueno: ok
21:12:07 <nati_ueno> danwent: I'm not sure why, but it occurs with ovs only
21:12:10 <danwent> here is reivew: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16210/
21:12:22 <gongysh> why?
21:12:33 <danwent> i think its because existing bridge with quantum does not use type="bridge" ?
21:12:45 <danwent> (unless that changed recently)
21:12:57 <gongysh> I can enable the nova firewall driver with linux bridge vif driver.
21:13:13 <gongysh> I think at least we have to doc it.
21:13:21 <nati_ueno> gongysh: Yes I agree
21:13:55 <danwent> basically, this happens if you use LibvirtBridgeDriver or any driver that derives from it, including OVS hybrid driver
21:14:18 <danwent> but will not happen with QuantumLinuxBridgeVIFDriver(
21:14:25 <danwent> anyway, this is a detail, so back to the main patch
21:14:39 <danwent> nati_ueno: so you +1's, but not +2s?
21:15:00 <nati_ueno> danwent: Akihiro was +2
21:15:07 <amotoki> LibvirtBridgeDriver expects libvirt Iptables Driver, that is the reason of the issue.
21:15:13 <gongysh> danwent, I can change my score to +2, if gate test passes.
21:15:47 <nati_ueno> gongysh: Gating failure is because of webob version, so it is not related this patch.
21:15:58 <danwent> ok… hopefully by end of meeting the gate will have run to merge the webob change, at which point we would need to rebase
21:16:09 <gongysh> nati_ueno told me not to approve patches if ...
21:16:09 <amotoki> danwent: secgroup patch conflicts with aaron's patch.
21:16:38 <nati_ueno> gongysh: Yes you are right. lets wait. sorry
21:16:47 <amotoki> danwent: we need to determine which is merged first
21:16:51 <nati_ueno> amotoki: I agree
21:17:09 <danwent> nati_ueno: linux bridge patch is ranked higher, so I don't want to jeopardize that merging in G-2
21:17:32 <danwent> amotoki: how significant are the conflicts?
21:17:48 <amotoki> either one can be merged first.
21:18:01 <danwent> #info expect db-migration patch to merge today
21:18:15 <danwent> arosen1: are you oke with merging linux bridge stuff first?
21:19:07 <danwent> is there a dependency between db-migration patch and security groups?  I imagine security groups patch does not already include db migration code?
21:19:33 <nati_ueno> Ah That's could be
21:19:34 <gongysh> I think most challenging is db-migration patch to nati_ueno's patch.
21:19:35 <arosen1> danwent:  sure it's an easy fix to update it.
21:19:46 <markmcclain> there is, but I'll SG migration
21:19:52 <danwent> arosen1: thanks.  ok, we will merge linux birdge first.
21:19:58 <danwent> markmcclain: in main patch, or afterward?
21:20:03 <arosen1> I'll rebase on nachi's patch in that case.
21:20:11 <nati_ueno> arosen1: Thanks!
21:20:11 <markmcclain> depending on which lands first
21:20:16 <danwent> markmcclain: ok
21:20:56 <danwent> ok, so, sounds liek there are no outstanding concerns with SG patch?
21:21:21 <danwent> gongysh: are you still planning on waiting until gate passes?  that will require a base on webob patch, i believe
21:21:38 <gongysh> so db-migration first or sg patch first?
21:21:55 <gongysh> no, I don't need to wait.
21:22:10 <danwent> gongysh: sounds like either is OK.  mark will add the DB migrations to his patch or as a separate patch later
21:22:16 <danwent> ok, so can we just merge it now then?
21:22:25 <gongysh> ok.
21:22:30 <danwent> fire away :)
21:22:47 <nati_ueno> Ah.. that was long way..
21:23:00 <danwent> #info plan is to merge bridge security groups patch now.  will rebase nvp security groups patch on top.  markmcclain will add db migration for SG to his patch.
21:23:01 <nati_ueno> Thanks!
21:23:09 <danwent> phew :)
21:23:17 <danwent> ok, next up, salv-orlando https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-service-type
21:23:18 <garyk> yay!
21:23:27 <danwent> salv-orlando: i think we're good to go here, once you add the migrations?
21:23:37 <salv-orlando> I think there's no other reason for concern
21:23:45 <danwent> garyk and I have both been +2
21:24:02 <garyk> danwent: salv-orlando : i can +2 now. it lloks good to me
21:24:07 <danwent> salv-orlando: ETA on that repush?
21:24:24 <salv-orlando> I need a couple of hours, so it will be in garyk's REM phase
21:24:29 <danwent> salv-orlando: i'm just worried, as garyk goes offline
21:24:30 <danwent> yeah
21:24:37 <salv-orlando> but perhaps I can get a +2 from him tomorrow morning
21:24:45 <salv-orlando> it's still in time for making it into G-2
21:24:46 <danwent> ok, so plan on pushing later today, and garyk +2's in teh morning?
21:24:52 <garyk> salv-orlando: i will check it first thing in the morning
21:24:55 <danwent> salv-orlando: yes, things can merge on tuesday
21:25:01 <salv-orlando> ok, thanks
21:25:02 <nati_ueno> FYI jeblairReminder: jenkins is offline for an emergency security-related upgrade, ETA in a few hours.
21:25:08 <emagana> salv-orlando: I just got back from vacations but I can do the review today.
21:25:32 <danwent> #info service-id is done.  salv-orlando is adding db migration.  danwent and garyk to re-review.  should merge tuesday morning
21:25:46 <danwent> emagana: things, though I think review on this is pretty much done expect for new db migration
21:26:03 <danwent> next up, lbaas crud
21:26:06 <danwent> sthakkar: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/lbaas-plugin-api-crud
21:26:09 <emagana> danwent: ok
21:26:12 <danwent> sthakkar is proxying for leon
21:26:31 <danwent> looks like leon responded to mark's comment: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16919/
21:26:36 <sthakkar> so i think there are a couple small issues
21:26:47 <sthakkar> regarding unit tests that need to be cleaned up
21:26:48 <danwent> there's a -1, but its more of a style think from avishay
21:26:59 <danwent> commit message definitely needs to be updated
21:27:09 <enikanorov> one more thing: Leon needs to make folder names consistent
21:27:16 <sthakkar> other than that we are looking okay. two things to do: clean up style & tests
21:27:17 <enikanorov> there are lb and loadbalancer
21:27:39 <sthakkar> enikanorov: ok will mention that as well
21:27:43 <danwent> enikanorov: yeah, i agree
21:27:50 <enikanorov> i've already made this comment
21:27:55 <danwent> ok, any other outstanding concerns?
21:27:57 <enikanorov> home Leon will fix that
21:28:02 <enikanorov> *hope
21:28:06 <danwent> sthakkar: when is leon online (he's based on china, right?)
21:28:20 <sthakkar> danwent: yep, around 4pm pst
21:28:45 <gongysh> leon is based on chain?
21:28:49 <danwent> sthakkar: ok, can we have him update those style issues first thing his time, so people here can ideally approve by end of day monday?
21:29:10 <danwent> gongysh: yeah, sthakkar should know exactly where
21:29:11 <gongysh> If he is, I will work closely with him.
21:29:18 <sthakkar> danwent: yes, i think that should be fine. we'll make that happen
21:29:38 <danwent> sthakkar: ok, great.  and the two core devs on this are salv-orlando and markmcclain ?
21:29:50 <salv-orlando> I am core dev on Leon's patch, yes
21:30:01 <danwent> with lots of great reviews from the marantis folks as well :)
21:30:10 <gongysh> sthakkar: can u tell me something about leon?
21:30:25 <sthakkar> gongysh: perfect, that'd be great. he's based out of beijing
21:30:26 <markmcclain> ]yes
21:30:38 <danwent> ok, so those are the four critical or high blueprints for G-2
21:30:45 <danwent> that should be the focus for us in the next two days.
21:31:19 <danwent> #info lbaas crud expected to merge late monday or early tuesday (US)
21:31:34 <danwent> #info currently there are no 'critical' or 'high' bugs targeted for G-2
21:31:47 <danwent> if something arises, please bring it to the attention of the entire core team
21:32:02 <danwent> we also have some untriaged bugs that I am working through: https://bugs.launchpad.net/quantum/+bugs?field.status=NEW&field.importance=UNDECIDED
21:32:16 <danwent> if you see something on this list that corresponds to your sub-team, please jump in and triage it yourself.
21:32:31 <danwent> Anything else for G-2 before we move on to talking about stable?
21:33:12 <danwent> #topic quantum stable
21:33:33 <danwent> garyk, doing a fantastic job on this as always, thanks for the email to the core team
21:33:42 <danwent> anything to add here?
21:33:46 <garyk> danwent: thanks
21:33:56 <danwent> here is the list of current stable reviews garyk sent out:
21:33:57 <danwent> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19079/ - validity checks for gateway on subnet
21:33:57 <danwent> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19051/ - exception cleanup
21:33:59 <danwent> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18818/ - ensure allocation pools are deleted
21:34:00 <danwent> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18819/ - fix exception output (I need to write a test case on master - i do not think this should prevent it)
21:34:00 <danwent> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18651/ - atomic access to databases
21:34:15 <garyk> danwent: a bit of karma to those will help
21:34:23 <danwent> garyk: have they finalized date for folsom/stable release at end of jan?
21:34:37 <garyk> danwent: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19096/
21:34:50 <garyk> danwent: it is at the end of the month as far as i know
21:35:18 <danwent> garyk: something specific about that last review, or just adding it to the list?
21:35:44 <danwent> everyone on the core team should make sure they knock of a few stable reviews during their review day
21:35:46 <garyk> danwent: just adding it to the list. the backport here was a bit challenging due to major code changes
21:36:17 <danwent> garyk: yeah, agreed.  my feeling is that the further away we get from a release, the higher the bar is for something to be backported, since the cost goes up.
21:36:31 <markmcclain> +1 to that
21:36:35 <garyk> agreed
21:36:50 <danwent> ok, anything else on stable?
21:36:54 <garyk> nope
21:37:16 <danwent> #topic quantum tempest
21:37:21 <danwent> mlavalle: any updates?
21:37:30 <danwent> looks like we're now focusing on the two blueprint
21:37:35 <danwent> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/quantum-basic-api
21:37:35 <danwent> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/quantum-extended-api
21:37:50 <danwent> any update from the tempest team meeting last week?
21:37:56 <mlavalle> danwent: I sent a message to the ML with the inventory of all the BP's
21:38:00 <danwent> (only needed if its relevant to the quantum team)
21:38:06 <danwent> mlavalle: yup, thanks.
21:38:18 <nati_ueno> Jay cleanups some bps.
21:38:18 <mlavalle> Jay approved my two BP's
21:38:25 <mlavalle> working on them now
21:38:43 <danwent> ok, anything else on tempest?
21:38:48 <mlavalle> nope
21:38:49 <nati_ueno> mlavalle: My team guy is working on refactoring quantum tempest code. Let's talk later
21:38:59 <danwent> nachi, i +2'd your patch to get temptest + devstack gating
21:39:05 <nati_ueno> danwent: Thanks
21:39:06 <mlavalle> nati-ueno
21:39:08 <mlavalle> ok
21:39:18 <danwent> we've waited long enough to hear about any "style" concerns in my opinion :)
21:39:31 <nati_ueno> danwent: ha ha Yes true
21:39:31 <danwent> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18665/
21:39:40 <danwent> #topic quantum horizon
21:39:54 <danwent> amotoki + nati_ueno, looks like you both made good progress here.
21:40:05 <danwent> #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/improve-quantum-summary-table (in review, expected for G-2: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19037/)
21:40:07 <nati_ueno> garyk: Could you take a look 18665. if this one is merged gating will works
21:40:16 <danwent> #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/quantum-floating-ip (moved to G-3)
21:40:18 <garyk> nati_ueno: sure
21:40:24 <nati_ueno> garyk: Thanks!
21:40:25 <danwent> #info https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/quantum-l3-support (in review, promising for G-2: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/19028/)
21:40:41 <danwent> sounds like gabriel thinks both fo the G-2 items will still make it, which is great
21:40:52 <danwent> anything else on horizon + quantum?
21:41:05 <nati_ueno> I have addressed concerns from Akihiro and Gabriel in latest patch
21:41:25 <amotoki> nati_ueno: thanks. will check soon.
21:41:30 <danwent> #topic open discussion
21:41:31 <nati_ueno> amotoki: Thanks!
21:41:50 <mnewby> Can anyone tell me why the xcp+ovs patch is languishing?
21:41:51 <mnewby> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15022/
21:41:52 <danwent> ok, i skipped the docs section before, in the interest of time.  only open issue that is 'high' is https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1088304
21:41:53 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1088304 in openstack-manuals "quantum security group doc is confusing when it comes to use nova security group features" [High,In progress]
21:42:18 <danwent> mnewby: i owe you a review on that as a thank you for the tempest work.
21:42:47 <danwent> mnewby: but in general, when there is plugin work for a particular platform that people aren't all that familiar with and probably don't have a test setup for, getting reviews is much harder
21:43:04 <danwent> mnewby: i find barter to be the best approach :)
21:43:05 <mnewby> danwent: My concern is that this is testable in two ways
21:43:16 <mnewby> mnewby: verifying that libvirt support still works - easy
21:43:20 <mnewby> oops, haha
21:43:47 <mnewby> danwent: verifying xcp is supported - easy, too, since people like John Garbutt of citrix have signed off on the changes as working
21:43:54 <danwent> anyone else want to volunteer?
21:44:07 <mnewby> danwent: I even went as far as documenting the steps taken to verify xcp support, and still no +2s from core.
21:44:13 <danwent> ok, if our main goal is making sure the code looks reasonable, and that it doesn't break existing stuff, that seems pretty easy.
21:44:25 <mnewby> danwent: I understand the horse-trading aspect, but it's been almost 2 months.
21:45:07 <danwent> ok, on a related note, I expect a lot of people to be pushing new plugins for new platforms soon
21:45:40 <gongysh> mnewby: where is the document, can I have a look?
21:45:41 <danwent> i have been encouraging people to add a link to their code on the main quantum wiki, where it talks about plugins that are out of tree
21:46:01 <mnewby> gongysh: http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumDevstackOvsXcp
21:46:07 <danwent> as a first step, so the quantum team can look at the code and provide high-level suggestions.
21:46:18 <danwent> then the trick will be to find someone on the core team willing to maintain that plugin.
21:47:03 <danwent> to ease the maintenance burden, i'm encouraging people to keep their plugins small and simple to start, until they have someone from their team contributing actively to the community.
21:47:38 <danwent> there isn't really a decision we need to make today, this is more of just a heads up.  I expect a flood of additional plugin in G-3, and not enough cycles from the core team to handle them all.
21:47:55 <mnewby> danwent: That suggests that such plugins should not be maintained by core.
21:48:09 <mnewby> danwent: A stable api might be preferable.
21:48:14 <danwent> so if you're planning on contributing one, your best bet is to keep it simple, and to contribute to the community, so someone on the core team will decide its worth maintaining.
21:48:16 <mnewby> (plugin api that is)
21:48:17 <gongysh> I am feeling the plugins give us too burden to develop new features
21:48:31 <danwent> mnewby: yes, that is the default position for all such plugins
21:48:39 <mnewby> danwent: cool
21:49:22 <danwent> ok, any other open discussion?
21:49:33 <alexpilotti> Hi guys, talking about plugins
21:49:51 <emagana> mnewby: +1
21:49:51 <alexpilotti> garyk helped a lot in reviewing the initial HyperV plugin
21:50:16 <danwent> gongysh: yes, i understand.  its a balance we need to draw as a team.
21:50:17 <alexpilotti> I was wondering if there is any chance to get it approved in the next days
21:50:39 <danwent> gongysh: but adding new plugins can add new horsepower to the community as well, if it coaxes people to be more involved in community aspects.
21:51:01 <danwent> alexpilotti: top reviewing focus for the next two days is in G-2 slotted items.
21:51:13 <danwent> alexpilotti: is there a particular reason why merging is urgent?
21:51:16 <emagana> alexpilotti: Is a wiki explaining the process to test it?
21:51:42 <danwent> alexpilotti: or rather, more urgent than anyone else's urgent requests for reviews :)
21:52:01 <alexpilotti> danwent: the only reason is that we would like to send in also the NVGRE tunnel support afterwards
21:52:11 <rkukura> Initial patchset for the ML2 plugin should show up in the next week or two, so we can eventually look at much smaller/simpler drivers (with stable API) rather than full-fledged plugins
21:52:23 <alexpilotti> danwent: of course it's not importat to be G2
21:52:35 <nati_ueno> rkukura: What's ML2 plugin?
21:53:06 <salv-orlando> alexpilotti: you can stack patches on top of each other, no need for waiting for us sloths to review your patch :)
21:53:06 <danwent> alexpilotti: ok, i would focus on identifying the core devs that will help you with the review and merge, in which case, it should merge quickly.
21:53:27 <salv-orlando> I can be one core - I think we're on the same time zone
21:53:32 <gongysh> I hope we can have a wait for rkukura's ML2 plugin, which allows coreplugin to driver multiple drivers at the same time.
21:53:50 <rkukura> nati_ueno: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/modular-l2
21:53:59 <danwent> alexpilotti: remember that before this can merge, you need to get a core maintainer for the plugin.
21:53:59 <nati_ueno> rkukura: I got it
21:54:22 <gongysh> so one quantum server can servers multiple L2 agents.
21:54:44 <danwent> alexpilotti: and that maintainer should send a note to the core team explaining why they think adding the plugin to the core repo is a good idea.
21:54:51 <alexpilotti> danwent: ok, from what I remember in a conversation we had
21:55:15 <alexpilotti> that somebody from our team could do that task
21:55:27 <alexpilotti> or is this something that happens afterwards?
21:55:51 <emagana> alexpilotti: Provide instructions for testing will be great as well
21:56:02 <alexpilotti> emagana: will do!
21:56:16 <danwent> alexpilotti: at some point in the future, hopefully someone from your team can do that.
21:56:22 <alexpilotti> danwent: not belonging to the Quantum core reviewers of course!
21:56:45 <danwent> alexpilotti: in the mean time, you can hopefully convince an existing core dev that they can work with this person before they are a core.
21:56:51 <emagana> alexpilotti: As Dan mentioned before, adding a link to the specific plugin wiki in the main quantum wiki
21:57:14 <alexpilotti> emagana: ok, tx. Do you have a link at hand?
21:57:29 <danwent> alexpilotti: if you keep the plugin simple to start, and provide obvious value (i would argue hyper-v does), then convincing a core dev to do this shouldn't be too hard.
21:57:39 <danwent> ok, let's take this discussion offline, so we can wrap up ontime.
21:57:50 <danwent> anything else, before we close?
21:57:52 <alexpilotti> danwent: ok tx!
21:58:01 <sharis> Brocade has a q-plugin and currently located at an external git site http://github/brocade/brocade - seeking help from code devs to review in order to push into quantum. Please send me email at sharis@brocade.com.
21:58:01 <emagana> http://wiki.openstack.org/Quantum
21:58:25 <danwent> ok, thanks folks.  let's close up G-2!
21:58:28 <danwent> #endmeeting