12:00:27 #startmeeting requirements 12:00:28 Meeting started Wed May 18 12:00:27 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dims_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:00:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 12:00:31 The meeting name has been set to 'requirements' 12:00:34 o/ 12:00:41 hey ttx 12:01:15 hi 12:01:28 o/ 12:01:51 o? 12:01:56 o/ 12:02:04 Hey 12:02:05 tonyb: what time is it for you? 12:02:09 ./ 12:02:14 tonyb : i don't see you on our new channel. #openstack-requirements 12:02:14 sorry, am a bit late 12:02:16 2200ish 12:02:28 dims_: I did not 12:02:41 * tonyb adds it to his IRC config 12:02:43 ohhh new channel. shiny 12:02:53 o/ 12:03:07 o/ 12:03:35 welcome everyone to the new team! 12:03:55 #topic : is this day/time ok for you? 12:04:06 i know we lost lifeless as it's midnight 12:04:19 tonyb : would you like us to move one hour earlier? 12:04:38 it's 7AM here 12:04:43 day/time perfect for me 12:04:52 dims_: that would be nice but only if it isn't terrible for the people just starting for the day 12:05:03 tonyb : ok, will keep that in mind 12:05:08 promethe1nfire : ack. 12:05:21 I think one hour earlier would make it difficult for promethe1nfire, and one hour later difficult for tonyb 12:05:40 ttx : right, let's leave it at this time 12:05:42 I think we have a people from each region 12:05:51 yeah 12:05:51 ya 12:05:57 dims_: got a ping to join here? 12:06:17 I think leave it as it is while we bootstrap and then reevaluate in a couple of months 12:06:17 #topic reviews with immediate attention 12:06:18 It's ok to me.. but not today. I'm out of the office now, but can do almost any hour. I'm a night person 12:06:22 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:%255E.*requirements.*+branch:master,n,z 12:06:27 GheRivero : ack 12:06:30 tonyb : ack 12:06:43 mugsie : not sure if you were interested in the team meeting. hence the ping 12:06:55 if it was 6 hours earlier that'd be fine 12:07:02 Looks like we made excellent progress the last few days 12:07:04 I'm also a night person 12:07:06 with reviews 12:07:12 yeah 12:07:16 we're down to less than one page 12:07:17 awesome! 12:07:29 the only hiccup we had was with python-kafka. we had to revert for monasca 12:07:44 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/316259/ 12:08:17 Though they are not subject to requirements process 12:08:21 Is there a gerrit topic for priority reviews? 12:08:32 their jobs seemed to use the versions in g-r/u-c 12:08:48 GheRivero : no, we don't have one yet 12:09:33 any questions on the kafka revert? 12:09:43 * dims_ lets folks look at the comments in review 12:10:46 dims_: is there a general guideline for that? I mean the revert broke some other project right? 12:11:39 dirk : ideally we would say no to revert. since oslo.messaging had not yet started using code depending on the new version, it was technically feasible to revert back 12:12:09 dims_ : I don't think the test system differentiates between projects following requirements and not when it forces the use of the constraints file 12:12:45 is someone working on fixing monasca? 12:13:27 dhellmann : Joe Keen and Roland Hochmuth (not sure what their IRC nicks are) 12:13:27 dhellmann: I think they're waiting for anumber of kafka issues to be closed before they do that work. 12:13:33 * sigmavirus24 apologizes for being late 12:13:38 hey sigmavirus24 12:13:49 dims_, tonyb : ok, as long as it's not being ignored 12:14:16 sigmavirus24: you up early too :P 12:14:21 dhellmann: yup 12:14:24 dhellmann : when oslo.messaging folks are ready with newer kafka, monasca should not have a say, unless they are subject to the g-r process by then 12:14:29 promethe1nfire: that I am 12:14:55 So this monasca not being in g-r but wanting revert promoted me to post this email 12:14:57 #link http://markmail.org/message/kb6jlhiuhmxea454 12:15:12 * dims_ lets folks click on the link 12:16:16 * tonyb had flagged that for reading tomorrow;P 12:16:18 in principle I agree, but if the way we run tests forces folks to use the updates even when they aren't syncing then we need to be aware of that 12:16:36 * dirk clicked it 12:16:41 * coolsvap saw that just before the meeting 12:16:42 because it doesn't sound like syncing requirements would have helped monasca here? 12:16:57 that looks like what's been discussed 12:17:02 dhellmann : it would have given them a heads up when the g-r change merged 12:17:19 as the bot proposes a review in their project 12:17:42 coolsvap : y, giving background on what prompted that email 12:17:45 dims_ : that's true. it still would have broken their jobs, but at least there would have been some sort of notice of what changed 12:18:01 right, and they would have the right to ask for a immediate revert 12:18:13 sure 12:18:23 dims_, ack 12:18:43 it would be good to get them off of the fence, and either start participating in g-r or stop using the constraints in their jobs (if that's even possible) 12:19:08 yep, in general we need to push people more to understand requirements process better. another example - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/313835/ 12:19:28 dhellmann: it isnt possible in a dsvm job 12:19:34 Steven Hardy was asking about instack-* 12:19:40 tonyb : that's what I was afraid of 12:19:45 dhellmann: we made it mandatory at some point 12:19:55 needing some packages that we were trying to remove 12:20:10 tonyb : it's really the only way to ensure it's going to work 12:21:01 dhellmann: Yeah. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time 12:21:45 #topic - sniff test matrix 12:22:01 we have a bunch of jobs in the requirements reviews themselves 12:22:03 dims_: I'm not sure I understand teh concerns in that review so far 12:22:44 dirk : instack-* is welcome to maintain any package versions they want they should not dictate what's in g-r 12:23:16 and i maintain a set of sniff tests - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+topic:dims/test/constraints 12:23:43 dirk and i have been diligently checking failures in these tests before letting in the nightly proposed updates to u-c 12:23:57 dims_: right.. lets talk about that some other time 12:24:02 does anyone want another project added to my sniff test? 12:24:16 sounds like monasca wants to be on that list :) 12:24:45 dirk : LOL, if they get into g-r/u-c/projects.txt then yes :) 12:25:17 dims_: keystone, glance, swift 12:25:34 dims_: designate, if possible? 12:25:56 dims_: with what you have and those you'll be covering >55% of all the items in g-r 12:26:30 mugsie tonyb : if you can add the reviews like the ones i have then that would be great - they key is the topic "dims/test/constraints" as i have a cron job that maintains these reviews once they are created - https://gist.github.com/dims/094ac0e8d8bd8c4a096b6b391157aef5 12:26:43 tonyb : right 12:27:05 #topic - release process updates that affect requirements 12:27:19 dhellmann : any thoughts/plans here? 12:27:25 * tonyb will review the gist and then add the required jobs ;P 12:27:36 dims_: painful projects are probably sahara, ceilometer, magnum 12:27:41 #action tonyb will review the gist and then add the required jobs 12:27:52 they integrate a lot of dependencies and from my experience break often due to inter-project dependency issues 12:27:57 dirk : i tend to add one when i break them once :) 12:28:06 A releated topic is runing $projects unit tests in u-c changes 12:28:11 it seems ceilometer got broken so often that they opted out already ;) 12:28:26 dirk : i don't want to get started on telemetry team :) 12:28:37 IIRC there was some interest in that at the summit and the issue was "which" tests. 12:28:53 dims_: ;) 12:29:10 tonyb: good point.. 12:29:14 tonyb : can you please add TODO(s) in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/requirements-tasks ? 12:29:21 (that's how I know the project set that covers 55% of g-r) 12:29:25 tonyb: ya, I thought it was a good idea, should we just pick some and see what still breaks? 12:29:36 better coverage is hard to get as we have lots of leaf items :( 12:30:10 dims_ : we've merged the patch to automatically submit constraint updates when needed. I just submitted another to give all of those reviews a consistent topic of "new-release" 12:30:13 tonyb : my sniff wip reviews run the unit tests too 12:30:24 promethe1nfire: Well we need to do some infra work first which will be mildly cumbersome 12:30:36 ah, ya 12:30:42 dims_ : those are the only release changes I can think of, unless you had something else in mind? 12:30:46 dhellmann : nice thanks! 12:30:56 dims_: Sure this was aimed at offical gateing 12:31:06 tonyb : ack 12:31:21 who wants to help tonyb ? :) 12:31:46 dims_: we need to decide if it's a good idea ;P 12:31:56 dims_: Sean was against it at the time 12:32:22 tonyb : we don't want to add *all* projects, we need a good representation or we would never land anything 12:32:37 guessing that was sdague 's concern as well? 12:32:56 projects that have good coverage would be nice, or ones that use more esoteric things 12:32:58 dims_: sure. We'd need to have a *very* good reasin for adding projects to the list if it was gateing 12:33:18 dims_: Yeah I think that was the crux of it. 12:33:30 ok switching topics 12:33:43 #topic TODO(s) from our backlog - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/requirements-tasks 12:33:52 we should probably leave out projets that use the more obscure requirements, since they're likely to be the teams proposing changes in the first place 12:34:03 dhellmann : ++ 12:34:08 anyone interested in picking up something to work on? 12:34:51 dims_: It seems a few poeple are working on the cruft problem 12:35:04 tonyb : right, almost done i think 12:35:39 dhellmann: right, I was speaking of more esoteric usage, not the requirements themselves 12:35:47 under "proactive tasks" we unblocked the keystone team to experiement with packages that work under python3 for LDAP 12:35:51 dims_: probably :) 12:36:05 dims_: for both libraries :| 12:36:47 promethe1nfire : you mean they have 2 sets of possible things to use? 12:37:07 So other than those dim/test/constraints reviews, how can we improve test coverage? 12:37:15 Is that the only axis we're measuring test coverage on? 12:37:52 sigmavirus24 : the oslo team has a set of periodic jobs to test several projects with oslo.* from master repos 12:38:02 sigmavirus24 : that's about it 12:38:27 dims_: how ot find those jobs? 12:38:28 dims_: keystone has pyldap and python-ldap both supporting python3 12:38:44 dirk : https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/dims-periodic-jobs 12:39:03 dims_: great! 12:39:05 they added pyldap a couple of days ago and just requested a bump of python-ldap yesterday 12:39:13 prometheanfire : by m1/m2, we should make sure they use one set 12:39:25 ya, it needs to be tracked 12:39:26 they are still experimenting i think 12:39:34 I can bug stanek and dolphm 12:39:46 stevemar : bknudson : dolphm : ^^ 12:39:47 :) 12:39:54 :D 12:39:58 prometheanfire : agree 12:40:14 #topic - daily reviews 12:40:52 around this time every day, starting about 7 AM my time (we started the meeting at 8 AM my time), me and dirk and others have been trading comments on reviews as well as on IRC 12:41:03 is anyone else available to join us? 12:41:30 this way, we push a bunch of things out, then see if anything fails by end of day, then start again next day with a fresh slate 12:41:35 +1 although its almost eod for me, but i can join for couple of hours 12:41:45 coolsvap : nice! 12:41:45 I actually put it on my morning routine (which is like 4-5 hours before dims_ ;) ) 12:41:46 I'd be available to do that at 10 or 11 your time 12:42:01 dims_: I can check in at the start of my day which would be toward the end of yours but no overlap with the others 12:42:21 tonyb : ack. i am usually still around when you begin your day :) 12:42:22 dims_: one of the action items is to publish the information that people should come and ping in openstack-requirements channel for issues.. 12:42:29 dims_: It's 7am for me, but I can join later 12:42:35 I can try to review from 12 gmt+3 12:42:37 sigmavirus24 : awesome 12:42:47 dirk: +1 12:42:48 IgorYozhikov : ack. cool 12:43:11 dirk : action to send an email to the ML tomorrow about the channel? 12:43:23 I can add the channel to IRC wiki page, dims do you want to email the list? 12:43:24 I can take that action 12:43:31 but I think a more permant place is better 12:43:34 dirk : thanks! 12:43:40 I just don't know where.. somewhere on elastic check pages or so? 12:43:42 radme? 12:43:52 readme 12:44:03 "we noticed that g-r broke your fancy project. please come to irc and tell us about it" 12:44:27 dirk : +1 12:44:41 does anyone have a good place to put that information? 12:44:42 ah, right 12:45:11 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Requirements might be a good candidate for refreshment 12:45:33 #topic - adding folks to team roster 12:45:42 ttx, dhellmann - thoughts here? 12:46:04 tonyb wanted to be ptl, was practicaly begging for it 12:46:07 since we officially started today, probably check back in a month on reviews, engagement and figure out who we can add? 12:46:14 prometheanfire : that's how I remember it, too 12:46:16 all hail tonyb :) 12:46:27 prometheanfire: uuuuummmm that's not how I remember it 12:46:31 dims_ : yeah, let's run as a team for a few weeks and see how it goes 12:46:38 tonyb : you might not have been in the room at that point ;-) 12:46:47 yes, we should definitely revisit core once we know who is sticking 12:46:48 :) 12:46:49 tonyb: you're welcome, and I'm sorry 12:47:12 * dims_ leaves "when" on ttx and dhellmann 's hands 12:47:24 #topic open discussion 12:47:36 So was the info in the etherpad enough? 12:47:55 do folks have an idea of what we need to do here? :) 12:47:58 I want to reiterate my thanks for all of you joining the team. It's good to see this work have some dedicated folks looking at it. 12:48:14 ++ dhellmann ! 12:48:27 I think so 12:48:29 And thank you dims, for taking the lead in organizing the meeting and the todo list and everything else. 12:48:38 dhellmann: Thanks for picking a scary title to get us in a room :) 12:48:41 my pleasure dhellmann 12:48:45 heh, ya 12:48:46 LOL 12:49:14 tonyb : yeah, I'll have to be more careful at future summits or folks won't come to my sessions :-) 12:49:21 dhellmann: :) 12:49:45 you only get to use that once in 2-4 summits 12:49:47 one another ML thread i'd like to bring to everyone's attention is from IgorYozhikov : http://markmail.org/message/awlpe5huktysxslj 12:49:50 So if this is a happening thing I'll make a calendar entry (probably in #openstack-meeting) 12:49:56 sound good? 12:50:10 tonyb : please go ahead to do the calendar entry 12:50:25 Thanks tonyb 12:50:32 tonyb : please add yourself as chair for now 12:50:39 * sigmavirus24 snickers 12:50:40 dims_, I believe that we already discussed it or new questions appears? 12:50:52 IgorYozhikov : want to be sure more folks read that thread 12:50:57 * dhellmann has to drop off early 12:51:03 thanks dhellmann 12:51:03 dims_, i c, thanx 12:51:03 * sigmavirus24 was snickering about tonyb being the chair 12:51:05 dims_: ;P 12:51:16 bye dhellmann 12:51:28 sigmavirus24: will you be a stool? 12:51:38 yew! 12:51:49 prometheanfire: as long as I'm the useful kind and not the smelly kind 12:53:02 sigmavirus24: dunno, some days you do kinda have an 'air' about you 12:53:07 thanks dims for arranging the meeting! 12:53:30 dims_: one action item from that thread imho is to review those cases where requirements and uc diverge significantly if that is still correct 12:54:01 so does anyone want to help revive https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Requirements ? 12:54:05 dirk: you mean if there's a big diff in versions? 12:54:06 it is currently marked as deprecation 12:54:09 prometheanfire: yep 12:54:35 prometheanfire: either that, or just by git commit messages (like e.g. uc got updated in 2016 but lower bounds last time in 2014 or so) 12:54:41 not a problem for me, luckilly 12:54:48 dirk, yes we need to update the page 12:55:15 so folks feel free to self-organize :) we can go back to our channel 12:55:20 thanks everyone 12:55:21 can we open an etherpad to first to finalize the content 12:55:28 cya 12:55:34 thanks dims 12:55:37 #endmeeting