19:02:30 <hogepodge> #startmeeting refstack
19:02:31 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 29 19:02:30 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is hogepodge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:02:32 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:02:35 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'refstack'
19:03:06 <hogepodge> #link agenda https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-17-08-29
19:03:14 <catherineD> o/
19:03:47 <mguiney> o/
19:04:17 <pvaneck> o/
19:04:28 <hogepodge> Hi everyone
19:05:15 <hogepodge> The agenda will probably be lighter today. Pike release tomorrow
19:05:32 <hogepodge> #topic PTG
19:05:49 <mguiney> \o/
19:05:51 <hogepodge> PTG is coming up in a couple of weeks
19:06:10 <hogepodge> Here's the working etherpad
19:06:15 <hogepodge> #link PTG https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-pike-ptg
19:06:28 <hogepodge> currently it's just the notes from the previous PTG
19:07:22 <hogepodge> catherineD: is there another Etherpad we're using for the PTG
19:08:40 <catherineD> yea the link you gave is for pike .. we share the same link with Interop-wg https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDenver2017PTG
19:09:57 <hogepodge> Ah, I guess this is Queens. :-D
19:10:12 <hogepodge> #link PTG https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDenver2017PTG
19:10:27 <catherineD> right now for RefStack only one item
19:10:40 <catherineD> Complete subunit data upload to RefStack
19:10:42 <catherineD> Policy/privacy concern discussion
19:10:44 <catherineD> Technical discussion
19:10:46 <catherineD> Complete subunit data upload to RefStack
19:10:46 <catherineD> Policy/privacy concern discussion
19:10:46 <catherineD> Technical discussion
19:11:10 <hogepodge> Ok.
19:11:21 <hogepodge> catherineD: any update on your attendance?
19:11:57 <catherineD> I will attend remotely this time
19:12:39 <hogepodge> ok, good to know. When the time gets closer I'll publish the schedule and a zoom link to call in to.
19:12:49 <catherineD> great
19:13:02 <hogepodge> anything else on the PTG?
19:14:06 <hogepodge> #topic verification field
19:14:13 <hogepodge> mguiney: how is this coming along?
19:14:42 <mguiney> alright!
19:15:07 <hogepodge> when do you think we'll be ready to run the update tool?
19:15:43 <mguiney> so, i ran into a bug that i had not anticipated, and then promptly left for most of the week
19:16:18 <mguiney> bugfixing on that is top of my list today, and then when that's in working order, i'll push the patch
19:16:19 <hogepodge> so still in progress?
19:16:23 <mguiney> yes.
19:16:30 <hogepodge> ok
19:16:44 <hogepodge> so later this week possibly?
19:17:00 <mguiney> i'm hoping to get this one merged fairly quickly, after getting it pushed, because i'd love to get this checked off the list finally
19:17:29 <mguiney> yes, i'm hoping for tonight/tomorrow but sometimes bugfixing goes awry
19:17:50 <mguiney> apologies for how long this has taken, i just found this bug at a very inopportune time
19:18:20 <mguiney> and have not yet been able to fix it
19:18:25 <mguiney> but soon!
19:18:47 <hogepodge> let us know if you need help sorting it out
19:19:23 <mguiney> I think I know what's happened, but if i turn out to be incorrect, i absolutely will!
19:19:47 <hogepodge> #topic subunit upload
19:20:25 <hogepodge> #link alembic_version patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/487185/
19:20:48 <hogepodge> #link subunit upload spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480298/
19:20:54 <hogepodge> starting with the second first.
19:21:12 <hogepodge> catherineD: pvaneck: any more comments on the spec? Are we ok to merge it?
19:22:20 <pvaneck> I think it should be okay to merge. I don't mind helping out with the refstack-client portion of it
19:22:41 <hogepodge> fantastic, thanks
19:22:44 <mguiney> I think you already did complete one of the action items, actually
19:22:57 <mguiney> (as noted in spec, thus the credit)
19:23:05 <catherineD> other than where to put the data (refstack db or own database) the spec looks good to me
19:23:20 <mguiney> (not volunteering you for additional tasks without asking, i promise)
19:23:42 <hogepodge> catherineD: mguiney: we sorted that out, right? what was the final decision?
19:23:54 <pvaneck> lol it's fine, but refstack-client will need to be altered to upload subunity directly.
19:24:16 <mguiney> ah, ok. apologies for the misunderstanding
19:24:38 <mguiney> we will absolutely be able to use subunit2sql within the db, as per my testing
19:25:16 <catherineD> last we were at seeting the alembic verstion tables ... we need to sort out to have tools so that existing refstack table won't be re-created ... see pvaneck: 's comment on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/487185/
19:25:36 <mguiney> the (still WIP) migration script I got pushed last night will allow its usage within the existing database, in the case of existing dbs
19:26:11 <catherineD> one way to merge the spec is not to define which db to save (leave that for later spec)
19:26:28 <catherineD> other thatn that everything else looks good
19:26:50 <hogepodge> if we have a solution and direction, let's update the spec to reflect it
19:27:03 <mguiney> the migration script handles that error in existing dbs
19:27:10 <mguiney> cool, can do
19:27:24 <hogepodge> sounds like we have a solution to the issue? catherineD does that sound ok?
19:27:36 <catherineD> yep
19:27:50 <hogepodge> ok, thanks :-D
19:28:19 <mguiney> awesome. one quick question:
19:29:30 <mguiney> what is (collective)your opinion on having a separate patch for the conf flag addition
19:29:50 <mguiney> vs keeping it in the same patch as the migration script?
19:30:29 <catherineD> I think it is clearer to have a conf flag patch with default conf value
19:30:44 <catherineD> that way it does not hurt anything
19:30:57 <catherineD> and then any migration patch
19:31:10 <mguiney> my thought was to add the conf and get it merged first, then the migration script which consumes the new conf after
19:32:00 <mguiney> awesome, that was my thought as well. It keeps it cleaner and more focused.
19:32:12 <catherineD> I think so
19:32:15 <hogepodge> sounds like the right approach
19:32:18 <hogepodge> +1 catherineD
19:32:36 <mguiney> in that case, would it possible to get some eyes on that patch so I can try and get it merged as soon as it looks good?
19:33:25 <mguiney> because the migration patch consumes the conf introduced in an unmerged patch, it will never pass gate tests until the conf patch merges
19:33:58 <mguiney> which is fine for the moment because it is still a WIP, but it's very close to being ready for review
19:34:00 <hogepodge> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/498735/
19:34:04 <catherineD> mguiney: you mean https://review.openstack.org/#/c/487185/  .. will review after the meeting
19:34:11 <catherineD> :-)
19:34:18 <mguiney> yes, apologies
19:34:28 <mguiney> should have specified :)
19:34:36 <hogepodge> catherineD: thank you :-D
19:34:55 <mguiney> thank you! review is much appreciated
19:35:48 <hogepodge> ok, anything else on this topic?
19:35:57 <mguiney> nope!
19:36:11 <mguiney> thank you all for input and reviews!
19:36:18 <hogepodge> #topic open reviews
19:36:26 <hogepodge> Two open reviews that weren't covered
19:36:49 <hogepodge> spec for configuration, still haven't heard back from David. I'll reach out to him over email to check on the status
19:37:00 <hogepodge> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/489421/
19:37:22 <hogepodge> The other is mine, which is a style change update I haven't worked on yet (working on Pike release)
19:37:49 <hogepodge> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/395426/
19:38:05 <hogepodge> So not much to add on those. Any comments?
19:39:04 <catherineD> once Sergy's concern is addressed .. we should be good
19:40:03 <hogepodge> #topic open discussion
19:40:13 <hogepodge> Any final topics before we adjourn?
19:40:28 <catherineD> I put an item there
19:40:46 <mguiney> ahhhhhhh interesting
19:40:49 <catherineD> I think we should update the website to enable schema 2.0
19:42:07 <hogepodge> #topic update website
19:42:32 <hogepodge> catherineD: should we do that before the ptg?
19:42:48 <catherineD> I think so ...
19:42:58 <catherineD> maybe this Thursday?
19:43:10 <hogepodge> catherineD: this Thursday would work for me
19:43:34 <catherineD> I sent you some commands via email  ..
19:43:46 <hogepodge> catherineD: I saw that, thank you.
19:43:53 <catherineD> pvaneck: and I can watch the server status ..
19:44:13 <hogepodge> catherineD: do you want to schedule a time for that?
19:44:44 <hogepodge> I'm free after 5 PM PT to do it.
19:44:48 <hogepodge> perhaps earlier
19:44:58 <catherineD> 10:00 am works for your ?pvaneck: hogepodge:
19:45:13 <catherineD> oh after 5:00 pm
19:45:26 <hogepodge> 10 AM would work for me
19:45:42 <hogepodge> It coincides with the QA meeting, but that shouldn't be a problem
19:45:51 <catherineD> pvaneck: how about 10:00 am for you?
19:46:23 <pvaneck> whenever is fine. Should go relatively smooth i think
19:46:43 <hogepodge> ok, let's plan for 10 AM. I'll send out the invitation.
19:46:44 * mguiney knocks on wood
19:47:07 <catherineD> I think so too
19:48:20 <hogepodge> anything else?
19:48:38 <catherineD> nope
19:49:25 <hogepodge> Thanks everybody, have a fantastic week!
19:49:43 <catherineD> thank yoy! bye!
19:49:55 <hogepodge> #endmeeting