19:00:27 <catherineD> #startmeeting refstack 19:00:29 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 6 19:00:27 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is catherineD. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:30 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:00:32 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'refstack' 19:01:33 <pvaneck> o/ 19:01:36 <rockyg> o/ 19:01:40 <catherineD> #link meeting agenda and notes, https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-17-06-06 19:01:58 <mguiney> o/ 19:02:24 <catherineD> hi everyone 19:02:37 <catherineD> it should be a shiort meeting today 19:02:45 <catherineD> let's start 19:03:47 <catherineD> #topic Next week IRC meeting 19:03:58 <luzC> o/ 19:04:14 <catherineD> Paul wll run the IRC meeting on June 13 and 20 19:04:51 <catherineD> pvaneck: thanks for hosting the meetings 19:05:09 <pvaneck> yep :) 19:05:43 <catherineD> #topic Displaying RefStack documentation 19:07:06 <catherineD> pvaneck: I guess we just need an other +2 on the last patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460746/ 19:07:19 <pvaneck> yea, will ask again soon 19:07:51 <catherineD> pvaneck: thanks 19:08:13 <catherineD> #topic Tools to check whether test links in a spreadsheet are marked as verified in RefStack 19:08:40 <mguiney> just about to push a patch for that now 19:09:08 <catherineD> mguiney: thanks! any thing we need to discuss ? 19:09:43 <mguiney> not a ton, decided to make the update success status logging an automatic thing rather than a flagged thing 19:10:30 <mguiney> because it's generally useful to have a record that you can go to for the last run, rather than needing to run the script again 19:11:11 <mguiney> (once you realize things may have gone wrong, that is) 19:12:37 <catherineD> alright .. please ping if you need to discuss at the #refsack IRC 19:13:06 <mguiney> o7 19:15:45 <catherineD> alright moving on 19:16:23 <catherineD> #topic Pending reviews 19:17:27 <catherineD> #link Add scripts for running refstack-client in docker ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430701/ 19:17:59 <catherineD> so Anne had reviewed it still does not work on her Mac .. 19:18:29 <catherineD> it works for me on my Ubuntu ... I think for mguiney: too 19:19:09 <catherineD> Chris mentioned last time that he can test on his Mac 19:19:21 <catherineD> I will ask him to review 19:20:20 <catherineD> mguiney: please mention this to Chris if you have a chance to talk to him 19:21:57 <catherineD> #link Add 'rm -f .testrepository/times.dbm' command in testenv ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459652/ ) 19:22:15 <mguiney> i will, should be talking to him later today 19:22:28 <catherineD> thanks 19:22:40 <hogepodge> o/ 19:22:47 <hogepodge> catherineD: I'll get on it 19:23:44 <catherineD> hogepodge: thank you ! I don't have a Mac env for the test ... 19:25:15 <catherineD> for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459652/ I will contact Nitesh to make similar update to the one he did today 19:26:18 <catherineD> #link Added Defcore additional properties waiver https://review.openstack.org/#/c/370534/ 19:28:07 <luzC> needs some rework... on my pending list 19:28:13 <catherineD> luzC: do we still want to continue with this patch? 19:29:09 <catherineD> luzC: alright ... thanks 19:29:11 <luzC> that was my same question... not sure how often the waiver is being used... the rework might take a while, so if waiver is not in use, I can abandon the patch completely 19:29:24 <catherineD> luzC: ++ 19:29:47 <catherineD> hogepodge: your thought? 19:32:28 <catherineD> luzC: How about bring this up for discussion on the Interop WG meeting tomorrow 19:33:13 <luzC> ok, sounds good 19:33:20 <luzC> I'll bring it there 19:33:26 <hogepodge> waiver isn't being used much 19:33:35 <hogepodge> not sure if it's going to be in effect much longer 19:33:47 <hogepodge> only one company has used it 19:33:51 <catherineD> ++ 19:34:13 <rockyg> I think it goes out with 2018.01? or 2017.08? 19:34:30 <rockyg> It was only for a year. 19:35:45 <catherineD> I thnk it will go out in 2017.08 ... if so it does not make sense to push this patch at RefStack... 19:36:21 <catherineD> let's confirm on that in tomorrow's meeting with the interop wg 19:36:31 <catherineD> moving on ... 19:36:39 <catherineD> #Open discussion 19:36:51 <catherineD> any other topic to discuss? 19:39:02 <catherineD> hearing nothing. I think we can close up for the day 19:39:12 <rockyg> Just wanted to say there are acouple of *long* threads on dev on tempest, tempest plugins and the trademark programs 19:39:52 <rockyg> Of course, no one has thought to bring the interop ML into the discussions on the part that relates to trademark. 19:40:51 <rockyg> And there are assumptions that interopWG is aware of and remembers a couple of TC resolutions about what can be included in the guidelines and TM 19:40:58 <mguiney> on the forums, or? 19:41:16 <rockyg> On the dev ML 19:41:29 <mguiney> ahhhh makes sense 19:41:37 <mguiney> sorry, didnt pick that up on first read 19:42:50 <rockyg> Yeah. It seems that some think InteropWG can't add any projects that aren't in some dev list that is part of an old resolution. Others think it has to have some tag. And the location of the tests also become an issue. 19:43:14 <rockyg> Because of one of the old resolutions saying all defcore tests need to be in tempest. 19:43:44 <catherineD> rockyg: should Interop WG discuss that in tomorrow's meeting to evaluate the impact? 19:43:46 <rockyg> Oh, and interop WG doesn't add or modify many tests. So, slackers 19:44:31 <rockyg> Yes, we should. I'm going to post an email to the interop list with links to the threads, but if anyone else gets there first, great! 19:45:02 <catherineD> rockyg: ++ 19:45:44 <catherineD> anything else? 19:46:49 <catherineD> ok let's close the meeting 19:46:53 <catherineD> thank you all! 19:47:03 <rockyg> Thanks! 19:47:07 <catherineD> have a good day ! bye! 19:47:13 <catherineD> #endmeeting