13:00:54 <yanyanhu> #startmeeting senlin
13:00:55 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct 13 13:00:54 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is yanyanhu. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:56 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:00:59 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'senlin'
13:01:11 <yanyanhu> hello
13:01:17 <haiwei> hi
13:01:26 <lixinhui> hi
13:01:37 <lixinhui> Where is Qiming
13:01:41 <yanyanhu> since Qiming is in another call conference, I will hold this meeting :)
13:01:49 <yanyanhu> hope he can join us later
13:01:51 <lixinhui> Okay :)
13:01:58 <haiwei> fine
13:02:08 <yanyanhu> please feel free to add items to the agenda
13:02:16 <yanyanhu> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/SenlinAgenda
13:02:43 <yanyanhu> #topic  deletion policy handling CLUSTER_DEL_NODES
13:03:27 <yanyanhu> so the first thing we may want to talk about is the patch about deletion policy proposed by haiwei
13:03:44 <yanyanhu> hi, haiwei, could you please give us some summary about it?
13:04:00 <yanyanhu> although I guess you're still working on it
13:04:02 <elynn> o/
13:04:04 <haiwei> yes
13:04:08 <yanyanhu> hi, elynn :)
13:04:30 <haiwei> deletion policy's TARGET contains CLUSTER_DEL_NODES action
13:04:56 <haiwei> but cluster_del_nodes action will delete specific nodes
13:05:20 <haiwei> so I thought deletion policy should not take effect when this action happens
13:05:44 <haiwei> maybe some of you will think the same
13:05:54 <yanyanhu> hmm, actually we don't need deletion policy to choose candidates for CLUSTER_DEL_NODE action
13:06:23 <haiwei> but Qiming noticed me there are other rules like grace_period and destroy_after_delete in deletion policy which will work for cluster_del_nodes action
13:06:51 <yanyanhu> yes, we just made a discussion about these two properties today
13:06:53 <haiwei> right, yanyanhu
13:07:33 <haiwei> these two rules are not working currently , I will try it fix it
13:07:43 <yanyanhu> actually we thought that maybe we should let end user to decide whether they want to destroy a node completely after it is deleted from a cluster
13:07:54 <yanyanhu> and also the grace period setting
13:08:02 <haiwei> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/232953/   this is the patch
13:08:43 <haiwei> yes, end user can define it in both deletion policy file and the command line
13:09:05 <yanyanhu> so the basic rule is if users specify the exact nodes they want to delete from cluster, they need to take responsibility to decide these two settings
13:09:07 <haiwei> and we will add a destroy_after_delete option for it
13:09:21 <yanyanhu> ok
13:09:27 <haiwei> yes
13:09:44 <yanyanhu> and about the comment I left before, I think I was wrong
13:09:57 <haiwei> welcome to review the patch after I pushed it
13:10:29 <haiwei> we can discuss it yanyanhu, if you have any questions
13:10:38 <yanyanhu> once user decided the deletion candidates, the deletion policy should not deny it
13:10:47 <haiwei> I also made mistakes at first
13:11:02 <haiwei> yes
13:11:28 <yanyanhu> ok, lets make further discussion about this patch later
13:11:31 <haiwei> the point is grace_period and destroy_after_delete rules
13:11:37 <yanyanhu> yep
13:11:37 <haiwei> ok
13:12:01 <haiwei> we can move on
13:12:10 <yanyanhu> #topic two placement policies or just one
13:12:53 <yanyanhu> hi, lixinhui, I saw you and liuwei are also working on this workitem recently
13:13:22 <yanyanhu> Qiming just proposed a patch of placement policy for cross-region yesterday
13:13:32 <lixinhui> yes
13:13:37 <lixinhui> I saw it
13:13:40 <yanyanhu> it is from the one for cross-az I think
13:14:21 <lixinhui> I will find more time to review taht
13:14:34 <yanyanhu> so we haven't decided whether we should combine these two placement policies since their logic of building placement plan are the same
13:14:38 <yanyanhu> lixinhui, thanks :)
13:14:39 <lixinhui> but not sure what does that mean by the topic
13:15:30 <yanyanhu> we hope to user the same placement policy to support cross-az and cross-region
13:15:40 <yanyanhu> if there is no much conflict
13:15:49 <yanyanhu> s/user/use
13:16:21 <lixinhui> okay
13:16:25 <yanyanhu> but it seems a little difficult
13:16:37 <haiwei> yanyanhu, currently which two patches are almost the same, I saw three patches about placement policy, Qiming, lixinhui and liuwei
13:16:43 <lixinhui> but I think more complex for across region
13:16:52 <jruano> yes they both seem to be addressing placement
13:16:54 <yanyanhu> I think liuwei and qiming's
13:17:04 <yanyanhu> jruano, yes
13:17:12 <jruano> makes sense to try to use one
13:17:16 <yanyanhu> lixinhui, right, we found some problems here
13:17:29 <yanyanhu> since region is usually carried in context and is supported by most openstack services
13:17:39 <yanyanhu> but az is different
13:18:00 <yanyanhu> only limited services support it (only nova and cinder now I guess)?
13:18:08 <lixinhui> yes
13:18:11 <lixinhui> yanyanhu
13:18:16 <elynn> Is there any benefit to use one instead of two?
13:18:43 <lixinhui> good question, elynn
13:18:56 <lixinhui> from my point of view
13:18:59 <yanyanhu> elynn, reduce the complication of policy type managing I guess :)
13:19:29 <lixinhui> I think there should be more region specfic logic there instead of current code
13:19:34 <haiwei> I think one is better
13:19:41 <lixinhui> I balancing
13:20:16 <yanyanhu> hmm, actually I also discussed this with Qiming this afternoon and we also haven't got conclusion...
13:20:20 <lixinhui> by design, liuwei's policy can work together with mine
13:20:21 <haiwei> people will get confused by two placement policies if they are actually doing the same job
13:20:28 <yanyanhu> lixinhui, yes
13:20:30 <yanyanhu> I think so
13:21:07 <yanyanhu> haiwei, but putting them together could make the implementation of placement policy very complicated
13:21:12 <haiwei> lixinhui, that means the patches are doing different jobs?
13:21:23 <lixinhui> yes, yanyanhu
13:21:28 <lixinhui> but region is different
13:21:28 <elynn> agree with yanyanhu
13:22:00 <yanyanhu> I guess maybe we can split common functiona out
13:22:01 <lixinhui> despite now, the logic may looks similar but there should be more difference in future
13:22:20 <haiwei> I am not familiar with placement policy, what about making one multi-region placement policy, the other multi-az placement policy??
13:22:48 <lixinhui> :)
13:22:58 <yanyanhu> haiwei, yes, maybe we should follow this way
13:23:09 <elynn> extract common function would be a good idea.
13:23:11 <lixinhui> I am not sure if this is a right moment to work on trgion
13:23:20 <elynn> But keep them two policy
13:23:41 <lixinhui> what scenarios to drive region work?
13:24:07 <yanyanhu> lixinhui, you mean the use case of cross-region node placement?
13:24:13 <lixinhui> yes
13:24:30 <yanyanhu> I think hybrid cloud is one of them
13:24:40 <lixinhui> oh, okay
13:25:12 <elynn> lixinhui: And site disaster recovery
13:25:25 <lixinhui> okay
13:25:41 <lixinhui> useful but complex
13:26:07 <lixinhui> does current logic of across region well serve the two cases?
13:26:25 <yanyanhu> e.g. you have a small region which undertake your workload in most time. But one day, you find the capacity of this region is insufficient for your workload, you may want to scale into another larger region:)
13:26:28 <elynn> yes, it might be complicate to handle multi region placement.
13:27:10 <yanyanhu> elynn, lixinhui, yes, we need to think it through
13:27:48 <lixinhui> okay, I will read the patch then catch you all for more discussio
13:28:14 <yanyanhu> ok, I think we need more discussion about this topic. Maybe we can first look through these three patches and then make more talk about it :)
13:28:23 <yanyanhu> lixinhui, thanks:)
13:28:37 <yanyanhu> ok, lets move on
13:28:49 <yanyanhu> #topic big tent proposal review
13:29:10 <yanyanhu> I saw Qiming just propose a draft about application for bigtent
13:29:18 <yanyanhu> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/234162/
13:29:26 <haiwei> yes
13:29:35 <yanyanhu> this is a hard work :)
13:30:10 <yanyanhu> hope you guys can help to review and any comments will be very helpful
13:30:38 <elynn> What is big tent for?
13:31:08 <elynn> Changing namespace from stackforge to openstack?
13:31:51 <yanyanhu> hi, elynn, I think it's about the principle for accepting new projects who want to join openstack family
13:32:09 <yanyanhu> elynn, nope I think. That should be the retirement of stackforge
13:32:13 <haiwei> elynn, the big tent means all the openstack project
13:32:16 <yanyanhu> let me try to find the patch
13:32:44 <yanyanhu> https://review.openstack.org/192016
13:33:11 <yanyanhu> hi, elynn, this is the patch and discussion about the retirement of stackforge
13:33:36 <yanyanhu> so I guess also stackforge projects will be migrate to openstack namespace after 17th Oct.
13:33:41 <yanyanhu> if they will
13:34:09 <elynn> OK, got it.
13:34:13 <jruano> big tent carries atc as well
13:34:27 <yanyanhu> but if a project wants to get the approval of TC, it needs to propose the application and accept review
13:34:34 <yanyanhu> jruano, yes
13:34:41 <elynn> If a project in big tent , that means it's an official and mature project?
13:34:47 <jruano> yes
13:34:51 <yanyanhu> elynn, I guess so
13:34:57 <elynn> Cool
13:34:58 <jruano> blessed by the tc
13:35:02 <yanyanhu> we usually call them 'TC-approved' projects
13:35:06 <yanyanhu> yep
13:35:07 <haiwei> maybe not mature, but official project
13:35:09 <lixinhui> :)
13:35:23 <yanyanhu> so we really should try :)
13:35:32 <jruano> definitely
13:35:45 <yanyanhu> hope more people can join us to make the project better :)
13:35:51 <haiwei> so help review the patch
13:35:54 <yanyanhu> stronger, more mature
13:36:32 <yanyanhu> yes, appreciated for any suggestion :)
13:37:04 <elynn> Will review the patch after meeting ;)
13:37:09 <yanyanhu> thanks :)
13:37:36 <yanyanhu> ok, let move to next topic
13:37:40 <yanyanhu> #topic PTL election
13:37:57 <yanyanhu> umm...
13:38:12 <yanyanhu> Qiming put this item in the agenda
13:38:26 <haiwei> it's strange that senlin doesn't have a PTL yet :)
13:38:35 <yanyanhu> we need to make the election now?
13:38:42 <haiwei> I thought he was the PTL
13:38:44 <elynn> I thought Qiming was the PTL
13:38:58 <yanyanhu> at least we have a candidates now:)
13:39:20 <haiwei> I think since we will elect it, we should do it formally
13:39:30 <haiwei> like other projects
13:39:39 <yanyanhu> ok, so let me start a vote
13:39:40 <haiwei> use the vote tool
13:39:55 <haiwei> cool, yanyanhu
13:39:56 <elynn> He is the only candidate, still need to vote?
13:40:09 <yanyanhu> actually we dont I think :)
13:40:30 <yanyanhu> anyone else want to join the competition?
13:40:35 <lawrancejing> hmm
13:40:39 <yanyanhu> :)
13:40:40 <elynn> Haha
13:40:42 <yanyanhu> welcome
13:40:52 <lawrancejing> hahaha
13:41:14 <haiwei> it is not bad to vote
13:41:18 <jruano> probably needs to be formal for move to big tent
13:41:23 <yanyanhu> actually after getting familiar with the project, everyone can have a try I think
13:41:33 <yanyanhu> jruano, yes, I guess so
13:42:07 <yanyanhu> ok, so since only one candidate now, I think we can make the decision
13:42:08 <jruano> i vote qi ming :)
13:42:27 <haiwei> +1
13:42:29 <elynn> Qiming +1
13:42:53 <yanyanhu> +1 from me
13:43:23 <yanyanhu> ok, we have decided it
13:43:29 <lawrancejing> Qiming +1
13:43:50 <jruano> hopefully he accepts
13:43:53 <haiwei> what about senlin-dashboard's PTL?
13:43:58 <yanyanhu> jruano, ;p
13:44:01 <haiwei> the same?
13:44:03 <jruano> lol
13:44:07 <yanyanhu> haiwei, nope I think
13:44:18 <yanyanhu> they need their own PTL I guess
13:44:22 <haiwei> need a PTL also?
13:44:32 <haiwei> not decided here
13:44:34 <haiwei> ok
13:44:38 <yanyanhu> not very sure about it, but I guess so
13:44:56 <yanyanhu> I will talk with Qiming and zhengguo about it
13:45:19 <lawrancejing> senlin-dashboard could have the same PTL -> Qiming
13:45:41 <haiwei> maybe zhengguo will run for it
13:46:05 <yanyanhu> yes, so I guess a discussion is needed :)
13:46:29 <yanyanhu> since both them are not here, maybe we can talk about it later
13:46:56 <yanyanhu> #topic open discussions
13:47:08 <yanyanhu> so now is the open discussion
13:47:56 <yanyanhu> anyone of you guys have decided to join the summit?
13:48:05 <haiwei> about the big tent application  patch , when is the deadline of review locally?
13:48:19 <haiwei> I should be there
13:48:19 <lawrancejing> i will go to the summit
13:48:22 <elynn> Don't get the ticket from IBM T_T
13:48:27 <yanyanhu> haiwei, I'm not sure about it. But I guess there is no deadline for this kind of application
13:48:35 <yanyanhu> elynn, sigh...
13:48:51 <yanyanhu> hi, jruano, will you be there
13:48:57 <yanyanhu> and also lixinhui ?
13:48:58 <jruano> yes i am going
13:49:01 <yanyanhu> cool
13:49:07 <haiwei> I mean we will push another patch for TC to review after we review it locally
13:49:26 <jruano> will you be there yanyan
13:49:38 <elynn> I think you can discuss this patch at summit
13:49:43 <yanyanhu> oh, haiwei, I think after we get feedback from all guys, we can propose the applicatoin formally
13:49:47 <yanyanhu> jruano, yes :)
13:49:58 <yanyanhu> I will go to tokyo with Qiming together
13:50:03 <jruano> great. we should do a meetup
13:50:07 <yanyanhu> elynn, sure
13:50:13 <yanyanhu> definitely
13:50:21 <haiwei> yes, so I think we need a deadline for the formal proposal, yanyanhu
13:50:59 <yanyanhu> haiwei, yes, I guess we will make the proposal before summit
13:51:10 <haiwei> we should try to be accepted before the summit
13:51:11 <haiwei> yes
13:51:26 <yanyanhu> just try our best:)
13:51:44 <haiwei> is there any information about the meeting room for senlin team?
13:51:55 <yanyanhu> haiwei, no yet ;(
13:52:02 <haiwei> it seems very limited
13:52:10 <yanyanhu> I guess the meeting room is very limited
13:52:12 <yanyanhu> yes
13:52:26 <yanyanhu> hope we can get one
13:52:43 <yanyanhu> in worst case, we can have a meal or coffee :)
13:52:50 <haiwei> there is no big enough place to hold so many people in Tokyo
13:53:01 <yanyanhu> and make our discussion
13:53:36 <yanyanhu> :)
13:54:15 <yanyanhu> ok, is there any other topics you guys want to discuss?
13:54:22 <yanyanhu> we still have 5 mins left
13:54:58 <haiwei> no from me
13:55:03 <jruano> im good
13:55:26 <elynn> not for me
13:55:27 <yanyanhu> hi, elynn, lawrancejing, lixinhui, anything else?
13:55:49 <yanyanhu> ok, so lets end the meeting
13:56:02 <yanyanhu> thank you so much for joining :)
13:56:11 <haiwei> by the way, good job for charging the meeting
13:56:21 <yanyanhu> thanks :)
13:56:21 <haiwei> yanyanhu
13:56:34 <yanyanhu> lets move back to senlin channel and release the meeting channel
13:56:41 <yanyanhu> #endmeeting