16:01:17 <adrian_otto> #startmeeting Solum Team Meeting
16:01:18 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Mar 11 16:01:17 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is adrian_otto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:20 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:01:24 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'solum_team_meeting'
16:01:28 <datsun180b> o7 morning
16:01:36 <adrian_otto> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Solum#Agenda_for_2014-03-11_1600_UTC Our Agenda
16:02:16 <adrian_otto> #topic Roll Call
16:02:19 <adrian_otto> Adrian Otto
16:02:25 <roshanagr> Roshan Agrawal
16:02:25 <stannie> Pierre Padrixe
16:02:27 <julienvey> Julien Vey
16:02:29 <paulczar> Paul Czarkowski
16:02:30 <datsun180b> Ed Cranford
16:02:31 <devkulkarni> Devdatta Kulkarni
16:02:31 <aratim> Arati Mahimane
16:02:31 <gokrokve> Georgy Okrokvertskhov
16:03:08 <coolsvap> Swapnil
16:03:29 <adrian_otto> hi everyone
16:03:53 <adrian_otto> Daylight Savings Time (yay)
16:04:35 <adrian_otto> I'd like to pursue a #agreed to end Daylight Savings time, all time zones will be eliminated, and move everyone to UTC
16:04:42 <adrian_otto> ;-)
16:04:58 <devkulkarni> :D .. good luck with that .. which channel you will be discussing it ;)
16:05:09 <datsun180b> I agree, so long as we move to metric time
16:05:18 <adrian_otto> heh, It's an exercise in futility
16:05:31 <adrian_otto> #topic announcements
16:05:40 <adrian_otto> our Solum Summit event is growing closer.
16:06:01 <adrian_otto> if you are planning to attend, be sure you have registered so Dan at Red Hat can get an accurate count
16:06:23 <adrian_otto> do other team members have announcements to share?
16:06:35 <devkulkarni> and add topics to discuss here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SolumRaleighCommunityWorkshop
16:07:02 <adrian_otto> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SolumRaleighCommunityWorkshop Solum Summit Agenda Topics
16:07:07 <adrian_otto> thanks devkulkarni
16:07:53 <adrian_otto> ok, let's look at our action items from last week
16:08:06 <adrian_otto> #topic Review Action Items
16:08:08 <adrian_otto> adrian_otto to adjust the wiki to show intent for incubation (adrian_otto, 16:20:35)
16:08:25 <adrian_otto> this is done. See:
16:08:35 <adrian_otto> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Solum#Summary Solum Wiki
16:08:39 <devkulkarni> is that that timestamp when you finished it? :D
16:08:52 <adrian_otto> just in the nick of time
16:09:23 <adrian_otto> the timestamp above is from the prior meeting chat log, so you can find it in context
16:09:25 <devkulkarni> "Solum is planning to pursue incubation as an OpenStack project upon achievement of development milestones." — awesome
16:09:32 <devkulkarni> ah! I see.
16:09:58 <adrian_otto> anyone is welcome to edit that to improve it if you feel so motivated.
16:10:31 <adrian_otto> next is the mission statement
16:10:33 <adrian_otto> adrian_otto to draft mission statement and solicit input form interested contributors (adrian_otto, 16:35:50)
16:10:59 <adrian_otto> I did not act on this item. I think this would be a valuable exercise for our upcoming Solum Summit event
16:11:18 <adrian_otto> I plan to come with a draft for us to iterate on then
16:11:35 <devkulkarni> oh yeah. that is a great idea. discuss it at the summit
16:11:37 <adrian_otto> who would like to work with me to make that initial draft via etherpad and IRC?
16:11:49 <gokrokve> +1
16:12:01 <devkulkarni> I would like to help
16:12:04 <adrian_otto> gokrokve: excellent
16:12:50 <adrian_otto> ok, the three of us can touch base after we adjourn here, and sort out a convenient time.
16:13:04 <devkulkarni> sounds good
16:13:06 <adrian_otto> so I will carry this action item forward
16:13:28 <adrian_otto> #action adrian_otto to draft mission statement and solicit input form interested contributors (gokrokve, devkulkarni)
16:13:34 <julienvey> I'm in !
16:13:46 <adrian_otto> julienvey: excellent, I will include you
16:14:08 <adrian_otto> let's pick an etherpad now. one sec
16:14:37 <adrian_otto> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/solum-mission Mission Statement Draft work
16:15:13 <adrian_otto> ok, so those interested are welcome to check that
16:15:28 <adrian_otto> next topic
16:15:33 <adrian_otto> #topic Review Blueprints: https://launchpad.net/solum/+milestone/milestone-1
16:15:51 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/api Solum API (aotto)
16:16:06 <adrian_otto> The API is looking reasonably complete at this point
16:16:11 <adrian_otto> at least for M1.
16:16:13 <devkulkarni> +1
16:16:39 <adrian_otto> noorul mentioned this morning that we believe everything for the CLI is in there
16:16:40 <adrian_otto> I have links to chare
16:16:45 <julienvey> yes, we are solving the last problems by doing the functionnal tests
16:17:18 <adrian_otto> 1. Add solum builder client (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78315/)
16:17:18 <adrian_otto> This one is required as it fixes a bug.
16:17:19 <adrian_otto> 2. Add plan manager and corresponding tests
16:17:19 <adrian_otto> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/72105/)
16:17:19 <adrian_otto> Takes care of the app commands
16:17:45 <adrian_otto> 3. Connect assembly commands and Rest API
16:17:45 <adrian_otto> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/79606/)
16:17:45 <adrian_otto> Takes care of the assembly commands.
16:18:03 <adrian_otto> I will focus on making sure these get the attention needed to merge
16:18:16 <adrian_otto> please review these as well to offer your input
16:18:21 <devkulkarni> +1 to that adrian_otto
16:18:46 <adrian_otto> that is a good intro to the related topic
16:18:46 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/solum-minimal-cli Command Line Interface for Solum (devdatta-kulkarni)
16:18:55 <devkulkarni> you gave the updates already :)
16:18:57 <adrian_otto> devkulkarni: any additional status beyond the above?
16:19:05 <devkulkarni> nope
16:19:07 <adrian_otto> sweet, we can move on
16:19:15 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/solum-git-pull Pull integration of Solum from an external Git repo (kraman)
16:19:23 <devkulkarni> about this:
16:19:40 <devkulkarni> we have the code for it in image_handler + build_app.
16:19:52 <devkulkarni> so we are good for now. the remaining things are:
16:20:26 <devkulkarni> 1) When a plan is registered we need to send back the trigger url to the user so that they can add it manually as a git webhook to their repo.
16:20:50 <devkulkarni> 2) Testing that the git webhook is getting triggered.
16:21:10 <devkulkarni> 3) Invoking the assembly create workflow when trigger is received
16:21:23 <devkulkarni> that is all
16:21:32 <julienvey> I can do 1. but I don't understand what you mean in 2. ?
16:21:59 <julienvey> There is also some discussions about the trigger
16:22:10 <julienvey> if it should belong to plan or assembly
16:22:12 <devkulkarni> julinevey: thanks. for 2, I mean just testing that the trigger is actually working (may not be code based test though)
16:22:28 <devkulkarni> julienvey: yes, I remember that discussion.
16:22:33 <devkulkarni> don't know where we landed on that.
16:22:41 <julienvey> it is currently in assembly
16:22:50 <adrian_otto> devkulkarni: on #2, did you mean that we need help from team members, or that this is what will be worked next?
16:23:32 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto: actually, I might have spoken incorrectly. I don't think we need any code for #2.
16:23:38 <adrian_otto> we do
16:23:54 <adrian_otto> because I'm reasonably sure the trigger handler code is just a comment still, right?
16:24:01 <julienvey> for #2, we have an integration test, is that enough ?
16:24:15 <julienvey> for the trigger part, the comment should be replaced by #3
16:24:15 <devkulkarni> julienvey: yes, I think integration test will be enough
16:24:46 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto: trigger handler code is kind of there (need to double check). julien, might know the current status on that
16:24:52 <adrian_otto> ok, seems like #2 depends on #3
16:25:05 <julienvey> #1 is missing
16:25:10 <julienvey> #2 is tested
16:25:12 <devkulkarni> #3 is definitely missing.
16:25:18 <julienvey> and #3 is missing yes
16:25:19 <devkulkarni> yes, #1 is missing
16:25:27 <adrian_otto> ok
16:25:43 <julienvey> we just need to plug it
16:25:49 <julienvey> all the plumbing is here
16:25:51 <devkulkarni> yep
16:26:15 <adrian_otto> do we have enough brains applied to that work, or should I help with recruiting more?
16:26:35 <devkulkarni> I think we have it covered.
16:26:48 <devkulkarni> of course we will need reviews :)
16:26:51 <julienvey> yes
16:26:56 <adrian_otto> ok, thakns for the update devkulkarni. Exciting to be so close!
16:27:03 <devkulkarni> yep!!
16:27:32 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/specify-lang-pack Specify the language pack to be used for app deploy (devdatta-kulkarni)
16:27:42 <devkulkarni> okay. the updates on this are:
16:27:55 <adrian_otto> we touched on this on the ML this week too
16:28:05 <devkulkarni> 1) aratim finished the GET lang-pack
16:28:12 <devkulkarni> 2) what adrian_otto said
16:28:31 <adrian_otto> aratim: !! yay !!
16:28:42 <paulczar> I have some quick notes that touch on both M1 and LP blueprints adter devkulkarni is done
16:28:58 <devkulkarni> paulczar: please share them :)
16:29:10 <devkulkarni> I am done
16:29:15 <devkulkarni> oh wait!
16:29:17 <julienvey> I am also working on POST/PUT/DELETE for LP, to be able to create initial data with the API
16:29:27 <devkulkarni> yep. was about to add that
16:29:30 <devkulkarni> thanks julienvey
16:29:33 <julienvey> should have a review tomorrow
16:29:41 <devkulkarni> +10
16:29:44 <paulczar> If we want to use Docker nova-driver for M1 We need the following reviews merged into their various projects:
16:29:49 <adrian_otto> julienvey: Thanks!!
16:30:18 <paulczar> devstack fixes for docker driver install - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78322/   ( we have an easy localrc workaround for this,  so not a huge problem )
16:30:52 <adrian_otto> paulczar: let's revisit this one in Open Discussion today. I have news to share about this.
16:30:54 <paulczar> olso-common libraries fail out when glance images have no name - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78642/ ( this is BREAKING )
16:30:57 <paulczar> oh ok
16:31:12 <adrian_otto> tx
16:31:31 <adrian_otto> devkulkarni: any more on specify-lang-pack BP?
16:31:42 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto: that will be all.
16:31:46 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/logging Logging Architecture (paulmo)
16:32:02 <devkulkarni> I think this is done, right?
16:32:15 <devkulkarni> paulmo is out today
16:32:22 <adrian_otto> structured logging is in scope for M1
16:32:30 <adrian_otto> but I don't recall seeing code for that
16:32:46 <adrian_otto> let's ask paulmo when he returns
16:32:50 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/deploy-workflow Workflow outlining deployment of a DU (asalkeld/devdatta-kulkarni)
16:32:58 <devkulkarni> Paul's patch did get merged. Georgy is using that right?
16:33:08 <devkulkarni> ok. about the deploy-workflow.
16:33:19 <gokrokve> Patch was merged
16:33:29 <devkulkarni> Angus has started on adding the Heat client
16:33:55 <adrian_otto> devkulkarni: did we get the unit/func test code added for that?
16:34:07 <adrian_otto> I have not looked at that review thread since Thu
16:34:10 <devkulkarni> you mean for the Heat client?
16:34:18 <devkulkarni> will check.
16:34:33 <adrian_otto> but I did see that asalkeld posted a series of newpatchset actions
16:34:54 <adrian_otto> if that's not yet done, we might seek volunteers to assist him with that
16:35:01 <devkulkarni> yeah. I need to also go back and check that..
16:35:19 <devkulkarni> okay. let me take a look soon and get back to you.
16:35:20 <adrian_otto> ok, one moment
16:36:01 <adrian_otto> ok, we can revisit that later
16:36:10 <adrian_otto> I think we are in pretty good shape with it
16:36:11 <devkulkarni> sounds good
16:36:18 <devkulkarni> yeah, I thought so too.
16:36:47 <adrian_otto> #topic Open Discussion
16:36:49 <devkulkarni> that will be all on that bp
16:36:54 <adrian_otto> so paulczar
16:36:59 <paulczar> yes
16:37:12 <adrian_otto> I met with members of the Nova team this past week
16:37:32 <adrian_otto> and got a sense of clarity with respect to where our containers support should come from
16:37:49 <adrian_otto> early on we evaluated options for using Docker, or similar technologies
16:37:58 <adrian_otto> our favorite one was to use the Nova Docker Driver.
16:38:21 <devkulkarni> was?
16:38:38 <adrian_otto> that driver is somewhat incomplete, and has some open bugs, although Sam Alba is continuing to work on it
16:38:58 <adrian_otto> there is also work on an equivalent solution that plugs in container support underneath the libvirt driver
16:39:21 <adrian_otto> so Nova would interact with libvirt just like it does to get a KVM instance
16:39:31 <adrian_otto> but would get a Docker container back
16:39:52 <adrian_otto> this also provides an integration point for other emerging container technology
16:40:07 <adrian_otto> so we should expect that driver to mature.
16:40:12 <paulczar> That sounds similar to how lxc is implemented
16:40:18 <adrian_otto> exactly
16:40:50 <paulczar> it may be difficult to do for docker due to the complexity of the union filesystem
16:40:59 <adrian_otto> to the implication to Solum is that we can couple to that driver without necessarily coupling to any singe container tech.
16:41:15 <adrian_otto> s/singe/single/
16:41:29 <devkulkarni> how would this affect Heat? As in, in the HOT that Solum generates would we have to worry about the compute?
16:41:32 <adrian_otto> we will still need to use a container image format
16:41:50 <adrian_otto> and Docker's is suitable, so I doubt we have a good reason to deviate from that
16:41:50 <devkulkarni> *type of compute
16:42:06 <adrian_otto> devananda: great question
16:42:14 <adrian_otto> s/devananda/devkulkarni/
16:42:25 <adrian_otto> sorry devananda (again)
16:42:44 <adrian_otto> so..
16:42:54 <adrian_otto> we ask Heat for a compute instance
16:43:05 <adrian_otto> and Nova is configured to use the libvirt driver
16:43:19 <adrian_otto> and produces a Docker container
16:43:34 <adrian_otto> or potentially a KVM instance
16:43:47 <adrian_otto> depending on hints passed through
16:43:59 <adrian_otto> so that is very convenient for us
16:43:59 <paulczar> devkulkarni, adrian_otto:  the image type being set to 'container' would tell the scheduler to use a nova-compute host in an AZ that supports that container type
16:44:21 <julienvey> that looks nice
16:44:23 <paulczar> so yeah, we should get that for free
16:44:33 <adrian_otto> paulczar: yes, from the appropriate compute aggregate
16:44:43 <adrian_otto> so the hint is actually in the form of glance metadata
16:45:03 <paulczar> so,  what to do for m1 ?  stick to docker driver for speed of instantiation,  swap to kvm for compat ?
16:45:11 <devkulkarni> paulczar: I see. And we don't need to worry about placement of containers because Heat + Autoscale will take care of that for Solum.
16:45:47 <paulczar> orrrr,  switch to LXC and get the instantiation speed, but lose the unionfs ( which only affects the time taken to copy the image to the nova host )
16:46:01 <adrian_otto> deployment speed is important to reduce the CI/CD cycle time, so we want to use the Docker driver until we have a working libvirt driver option to substitute there.
16:46:11 <julienvey> adrian_otto: do you have some links (reviews, bps..) to share about the libvirt container support ? Maybe we could help them
16:46:29 <paulczar> right.  we need to get at least two bugs pushed through to use docker for m1
16:46:32 <devkulkarni> -1 to switching to LXC (since we already have Docker based builds)
16:46:33 <adrian_otto> julienvey: not yet, but I would be happy to track them down
16:47:25 <julienvey> I talked to the Docker team recently, their current focus is on getting the CI working in nova, that's why there is not much work on the driver
16:47:29 <adrian_otto> #action adrian_otto to locate Nova blueprints/reviews on libvirt driver support for Docker
16:47:54 <julienvey> Eric Windisch is leading that
16:48:01 <paulczar> julienvey: I got the same story talking with Eric
16:48:04 <devkulkarni> is the Docker team also working on the libvirt option?
16:48:22 <adrian_otto> devkulkarni: I will check with them to confirm
16:48:24 <paulczar> they're using my dockenstack project as a base which is pretty cool.
16:48:39 <devkulkarni> paulczar: link please :)
16:48:47 <adrian_otto> I do know that RAX is contributing to that effort
16:48:58 <devkulkarni> adrian_otto: awesome. thanks!
16:49:15 <paulczar> we have two blocking bugs in oslo and nova that will stop us from using docker driver
16:49:36 <adrian_otto> paulczar: each has open reviews in Nova, right?
16:49:38 <paulczar> I have patched oslo, and fixed the patch for nova
16:49:39 <paulczar> yes
16:49:47 <paulczar> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78642/
16:49:51 <paulczar> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/65393/
16:50:18 <paulczar> and this is a nice to have - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78322/
16:50:57 <paulczar> devkulkarni: https://github.com/ewindisch/dockenstack
16:51:30 <paulczar> heh,  sudden flurry of +1's :)
16:51:48 <devkulkarni> paulczar: cool.. thanks!
16:52:28 <ewindisch> paulczar: feel free to add me to any such reviews as above... (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78322/)
16:52:58 <adrian_otto> hardcoding a specific username in https://review.openstack.org/78322 is likely to raises concerns
16:53:24 <paulczar> specific username ?
16:53:25 <adrian_otto> if other solutions are possible, we should explore those
16:53:39 <adrian_otto> the patch adds "samalba/registry" as a default
16:53:42 <ewindisch> paulczar: ewindisch
16:53:53 <paulczar> adrian_otto: that's just the name of the trusted build
16:54:27 <paulczar> ewindisch: thx
16:54:31 <ewindisch> paulczar / adrian_otto: that's off the master branch. What is used right now is the cut release.
16:54:44 <ewindisch> if there is a bug in the release we should cut a new one
16:55:32 <paulczar> ewindisch: I gave up asking for that!  ( before you started ) ;)
16:55:33 <adrian_otto> ok, seeing something named after a person jumped out at me
16:56:18 <paulczar> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/78642/ wants a unit test … does a real dev want to help out with that ?
16:56:46 <julienvey> paulczar: sure
16:57:25 <adrian_otto> paulczar: thanks for raising those reviews to our attention
16:58:04 <paulczar> np
16:58:16 <adrian_otto> paulczar: Doug Hellman asked for a unit test on https://review.openstack.org/78642
16:58:37 <paulczar> adrian_otto: julienvey just offered to help with that
16:58:49 <adrian_otto> lagged. thanks!
16:59:27 <adrian_otto> anyone else that would like to be recorded in the attendance, please chime in
16:59:30 <paulczar> with those merged in I think we'll be good to M1 on docker
16:59:33 <ewindisch> as long as we're linking reviews... I've got a pile for Docker stuff: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+owner:ewindisch,n,z
16:59:53 <adrian_otto> ewindisch: thank you!
17:00:10 <adrian_otto> thanks everyone
17:00:15 <adrian_otto> #endmeeting