21:06:01 #startmeeting Solum Team Meeting 21:06:02 Meeting started Tue Aug 11 21:06:01 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is adrian_otto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:06:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:06:05 The meeting name has been set to 'solum_team_meeting' 21:06:40 o/ 21:07:16 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Solum#Agenda_for_2015-08-11_2100_UTC Our Agneda 21:07:24 #topic Roll Call 21:07:26 Adrian Otto 21:07:31 murali allada 21:07:36 Devdatta Kulkarni 21:07:39 hello dimtruck, muralia, devkulkarni 21:07:44 hello! 21:07:48 hey adrian 21:07:51 hi adrian 21:08:03 #topic Announcements 21:08:11 Any announcements from team members? 21:08:47 #topic Review Action Items 21:08:51 (none) 21:08:53 hello! 21:09:02 hi rods 21:09:05 #topic Blueprint/Task Review and Discussion 21:09:41 (devkulkarni) Update on app resource. 21:09:50 Resource implemented by Ed. Resource implementation already merged. I am currently working on adding functional tests. 21:09:57 I = devkulkarni 21:09:57 so yes.. 21:10:15 the resource implementation for app resource is already in master 21:10:24 I am currently working on functional tests. 21:10:35 requesting folks to keep an eye out 21:10:49 will be good to have review feedback on patches 21:10:55 nice 21:11:16 thanks muralia.. will be good to have you take a look at the patches 21:11:21 (devkulkarni) Update on workflow resource implementation 21:11:29 so on this one.. 21:11:33 #link https://github.com/stackforge/solum-specs/blob/master/specs/liberty/app-resource.rst Spec 21:11:46 the spec has been merged a while back 21:11:49 workflow resource, or app resource? 21:11:54 workflow resource 21:12:07 code for app resource is merged in master 21:12:23 code for workflow resource is in WIP patches 21:12:30 both items were started by Ed 21:12:35 I am continuing both the items 21:12:46 what work is remaining devkulkarni? 21:13:15 muralia: so several things are remaining on workflow resource.. 21:13:32 1) need to complete the resource definition and the crud methods 21:13:52 2) need to connect the resources to our main engine (worker, deployer) 21:14:08 those are minimum to get an end-to-end picture complete 21:14:12 after that.. 21:14:21 3) need to add 'history' 21:14:38 4) also, move 'logs' resource from assembly to app 21:14:59 right now, Ed's WIP patches are for step 1 above 21:15:07 ok 21:15:11 and those are not complete yet 21:15:39 (devkulkarni) Update on Vagrant setup -- we are back to deploying apps on Vagrant. 21:15:40 I will be pushing those patches forward after adding functional tests to the 'app' resource is completed 21:15:52 ok on the Vagrant setup .. 21:15:52 vagrant works again 21:15:59 yes — that is the status 21:16:05 nice 21:16:16 we are able to deploy apps on Vagrant setup again (was having issues due to nova-docker and neutron) 21:16:40 so anyone who wants to contribute to developing solum can use vagrant to get an end-to-end experience 21:17:00 which docker version are we using in vagrant? 21:17:01 ping me if you want details about where to find vagrant repo 21:17:08 james_li: 1.7.0 21:17:16 with 1.7.1 it has been failing 21:17:22 I have submitted a patch to nova-docker 21:17:29 "it" == our vagrant setup 21:17:34 ok. I was testing against 1.7.0 too 21:17:43 oh ok 21:17:47 never work with 1.7.1 before 21:17:54 ok, that is good to know. 21:18:04 right now, till that patch gets merged in nova-docker 21:18:17 I have pinned our Vagrant environment to my fork of nova-docker 21:18:29 in which I have pinned docker version to 1.7.0 21:18:41 #topic Open Discussion 21:18:57 you may post your own topic now. 21:19:07 adrian_otto: ok 21:19:17 (devkulkarni) Discuss writing of spec for solum-magnum integration. We have a bp for it: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/magnum-integration. Need a volunteer to lead the effort of writing the spec. 21:19:19 devkulkarni: 1.8.0 just got released 21:19:29 dimtruck: thanks for the info 21:19:39 I will test whether nova-docker would work with 1.8.0 21:19:50 dimtruck: what? 21:20:03 so last time we were talking about using magnum within solum 21:20:22 dimtruck and muralia seem to have some understanding of the topic 21:20:35 dimtruck, muralia: any thoughts on the spec? 21:20:49 james_li: https://github.com/docker/docker/releases/tag/v1.8.0 21:21:02 checking 21:21:05 thanks dimtruck 21:21:20 I could help with the magnum spec 21:21:31 that would be awesome adrian_otto 21:21:32 not much to contribute right now. I've started working with magnum. i do like the idea of integrating with magnum and i'll work on the spec 21:21:47 but I may not be very fast, as I'm balancing a number of commitments. 21:21:51 i'd like to help out too :) 21:21:56 same here :) 21:22:05 it'll probably be a slow'ish process since we're all still spinning up 21:22:09 adrian_otto, muralia, dimtruck: I understand 21:22:21 but there's a definite potential of solum -> heat -> magnum flow that would help us a ton 21:22:23 i think we should wait for the other resources to get merged first anyway 21:22:37 there is no rush (although I was thinking may be it will be a nice thing to have landed before Tokyo) 21:22:48 muralia: actually there is dependency imo 21:22:55 i see 21:22:55 because the main change is going to be in the deployer 21:23:13 instead of using heat+nova-docker we will be using heat+magnum 21:23:19 i.e. the magnum resource in heat 21:23:24 at least that is my understanding 21:23:42 anyways — there is no rush 21:23:47 hmm yes 21:23:59 adrian_otto, muralia, dimtruck: thanks for volunteering for the spec 21:24:36 ok that was all on that topic 21:24:38 I had one more 21:24:50 (devkulkarni) Pluggable deployer architecture (Please review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202254/2). We need this for several follow-up features (non-destructive app update, solum-magnum integration, HA architecture) 21:25:04 so this one is about pluggable deployer architecture 21:25:13 randallburt has submitted a spec 21:25:28 whenever you get a chance, please review it 21:25:51 for several follow-up features we need the pluggable deployer model 21:27:16 vijendar: you might want to take a look at that spec as well 21:27:28 vijendar: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/202254/2 21:27:29 devkulkarni: sure 21:27:38 thanks vijendar 21:27:52 that is all on that topic 21:28:41 #link https://review.openstack.org/202254 Spec for deployer plugins 21:29:43 we talked about the use of flavors 21:29:58 I think that's a really bad idea, and I'm willing to -2 the spec if we don't change that 21:30:12 adrian_otto: yes — we did talk about that 21:30:28 sure, I think that is ok 21:31:01 I know that randallburt had a couple of other suggestions 21:31:12 I will follow up with him 21:31:18 consensus on topology in the review comments 21:31:36 we converged on "template" when we discussed this in a previous team meeting 21:31:55 yes, that is correct 21:32:14 so one of the action items could be to change the spec 21:32:28 to reflect this agreement (use "template") 21:34:07 ok, I reviewed with a -1 asking for that change 21:34:18 nice 21:34:30 anythign else to covera s a group today? 21:34:39 that was all on my list 21:34:43 great 21:35:12 our next team meeting will be Tuesday 2015-08-18 at 2100 UTC 21:35:14 see you then! 21:35:18 thank you adrian_otto 21:35:18 #endmeeting