19:00:42 <notmyname> #startmeeting swift
19:00:42 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Mar  4 19:00:42 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is notmyname. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:43 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:00:45 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'swift'
19:01:06 <notmyname> hello, who's here for the swift meeting?
19:01:11 <mattoliverau> o/
19:01:12 <tdasilva> hi
19:01:12 <cutforth> o/
19:01:14 <zaitcev> o7
19:01:28 <kota_> ya
19:02:12 * notmyname gives people a moment to join
19:02:35 <notmyname> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Swift
19:02:39 <notmyname> agenda is there
19:03:01 <notmyname> the goal of this meeting to to review the EC status and make a call on our commitment to an EC beta in kilo
19:03:12 <notmyname> also, I've got a hard stop in 27 minutes :-)
19:05:08 <zaitcev> I cannot answer the final question, sorry. Ask Paul/Sam/Clay, decide yes/no, done! Should be free way before the hard stop.
19:05:28 <notmyname> it's for all of us :-)
19:05:43 <zaitcev> I should look how intrusive EC is and perhaps it's not bad wrt regressions
19:05:47 <acoles> hi
19:05:51 <notmyname> acoles: hello
19:06:00 <zaitcev> If it is, the sooner we pull it, the better
19:06:19 <notmyname> I have been talking to them, nearly every day. /me is trying to to be annoyed that they aren't here
19:06:23 <notmyname> *not to be
19:06:53 <tdasilva> peluse mentioned something last night about traveling to Boston today
19:07:01 <notmyname> ah, right
19:07:02 <tdasilva> not sure if that was after the meeting
19:07:28 <notmyname> and peluse just sent me a text message. wifi not working at the airport
19:07:41 <notmyname> ok, let's get started
19:07:49 <notmyname> #topic ec status
19:08:02 <notmyname> here's where we are, as I know it
19:08:18 <notmyname> the swift part of the code is going well
19:08:23 <peluse_> ok, I'm here
19:08:27 <notmyname> basice GET and PUT functionality has landed
19:08:29 <mattoliverau> peluse_: found some internets
19:08:29 <notmyname> peluse_: yay
19:08:40 <peluse_> found curt's PC :)
19:09:07 <notmyname> there will need to be some refactoring work on the read/write path, but that may not make it into a beta
19:09:14 <peluse_> so yeah the big review is the multiple fragment index one, thats important and needs to be next focus
19:09:16 <notmyname> there is some additional functionality that is being worked on
19:09:38 <notmyname> eg torgomatic is working on ranged gets and cleaning up some of the put path
19:09:46 <peluse_> agree on read/writre refactoring.  we may want some tweaks before beta but beyond that and bug fix should be OK
19:09:57 <acoles> peluse_: you mean https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637 ?
19:10:17 <peluse_> not on my laptop so don't want to click away and get lost but the one you are working on with me, yes :)
19:10:38 <acoles> peluse_: sure, thats the one then :)
19:10:41 <notmyname> clayg is looking at some of the bckground daemon processes. eg container-sync and the account-reaper have to be refactored to account for using internal proxy instead of direct calls
19:11:05 <peluse_> and the reconstructor will be back up and running this weekend.  unfortunately I'm out of office til Sun
19:11:07 <notmyname> there will likely be somewhat of a mad dash at the end to get the background daemon jobs working
19:11:19 <notmyname> ok. so the reconstructor is what peluse_ is working on
19:11:33 <notmyname> peluse_: that's been split apart, right?
19:11:51 <peluse_> notmyname: great news on the rework of the daemons, glad clayg is on it
19:11:59 <notmyname> the multipl fragment index one (that acoles linked)
19:12:04 <notmyname> acoles: you're working with peluse_ on that?
19:12:14 <acoles> yes and i can spend more time on it
19:12:20 <notmyname> thanks
19:12:29 <acoles> had some comments from mattoliverau and clayg to follow up on
19:12:33 <notmyname> ok
19:12:35 <notmyname> tdasilva: I know you've been jumping in too. where are you looking right now?
19:12:52 <tdasilva> notmyname: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161030/3
19:13:10 <notmyname> ah, good. thanks
19:13:16 <tdasilva> notmyname: container update of etag and size
19:13:17 <acoles> but clayg let a comment in #openstack-swift about wanting to refactor into per-policy diskfiles, so i'm not sure whether to proceed or if he is going to do a big re-write
19:13:21 * notmyname stars that patch
19:13:22 <acoles> s/let/left/
19:13:40 <notmyname> acoles: ok
19:13:57 <peluse_> so we should talk more about policy diskfiles... make sure implications are clear to everyone
19:14:12 <peluse_> including me :)
19:14:36 <notmyname> I think clayg is looking at the b/g stuff first. but yes. I definitely want to understand that part
19:14:52 <peluse_> cool, maybe Mon we can talk
19:15:15 <notmyname> ok, what else is ongoing in ec-landia? mattoliverau? kota_? you've both been reviewing and writing code in there
19:15:29 <notmyname> zaitcev: are you looking at any ec stuff right now?
19:15:40 <zaitcev> notmyname: not this moment, no
19:15:44 <mattoliverau> I've been reviewing and testing
19:15:49 <notmyname> ok
19:16:01 <acoles> peluse_: notmyname : so should i hold off on multi frag patch until you've discussed per-policy diskfile?
19:16:04 <peluse_> zaitcev: if you have time to look at the multi FI patch (if someone can paste link) that would be rgeat.  its diskfile guts changes
19:16:06 <kota_> on Swift part, I'm not working, right now, but will start to review
19:16:14 * acoles doesnt wantto waste effort
19:16:14 <notmyname> kota_: thanks
19:16:23 <kota_> on PyECLib part, almost done my work to add NTT plugin.
19:16:51 <notmyname> kota_: right. you've been working on pyeclib. good (/me will come back to that is just a moment)
19:16:58 <acoles> multi FI == https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637/4
19:17:36 <notmyname> peluse_: what do you think of acoles's question? per-policy diskfile discussion first or after?
19:18:07 <peluse_> sorry before or afer what?
19:18:19 <acoles> before or after i do any more work on it :D
19:18:27 <peluse_> OK, I see it now.  I think we press forward
19:18:36 <peluse_> until we change our minds :)
19:18:40 <notmyname> heh
19:19:04 <notmyname> peluse_: thanks for splitting up some of the reconciler stuff
19:19:04 <mattoliverau> lol, just what acoles wants to hear
19:19:18 <notmyname> it's a big piece, and the longer it stays there, the more worried I am about it
19:19:21 <peluse_> so seriously though, yeah I think we should keep with the current direction until we have good reaons to change and all agree
19:19:27 <acoles> mattoliverau: right!
19:19:29 <notmyname> agreed
19:19:47 <acoles> fwiw i was finding ways to hide policy specific stuff in the policy classes
19:19:53 <acoles> and i think there is more scope
19:19:59 <notmyname> ok, last question about the swift code: has anyone been looking specifically at tests for ec?
19:20:16 <acoles> its whether that is sufficient or we flip to multiple diskfile classes
19:20:24 <peluse_> acoles: yup, agree.  little things like that can make full per policy diskfile less interesting
19:21:10 <acoles> peluse_: ok i will press on with a philosophical attitude to the lifespan of anything i type :)
19:21:31 <notmyname> tdasilva: I moved your task on trello into "doing"
19:21:40 <tdasilva> notmyname: cool, thanks!
19:21:44 <notmyname> ok, last moving piece is pyeclib
19:21:46 <acoles> zaitcev: mattoliverau : ^^ i will spin another version of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159637 tomorrow fyi
19:21:49 * tdasilva needs to check trello more often
19:22:01 * notmyname assumes nobody is yet looking specifically at test updates
19:22:09 <zaitcev> thanks
19:22:13 <notmyname> I talked to tsg about pyeclib this morning
19:22:25 <notmyname> he's tracking down some dependency issues in ubuntu to get 1.0 available
19:22:33 <mattoliverau> acoles: cool
19:22:37 <notmyname> 1.0 removes the "remote calls during install" issue
19:22:52 <notmyname> and basically will be needed for any packaging and a lot of testing
19:23:12 <notmyname> feature freeze for openstack kilo is in 2 weeks, so that's the deadline for getting that sorted out
19:23:42 <notmyname> so, all that being said....
19:23:47 <notmyname> looking at dates
19:23:57 <notmyname> mar 27 is 4.5 weeks from today
19:24:07 <notmyname> that gives us 2 weeks for a merge-to-master
19:24:17 <notmyname> for an RC on april 10
19:24:35 <peluse_> cool... i think
19:24:58 <notmyname> can we commit to an ec beta (most features, but not "certified prod ready") in that timeframe?
19:25:04 <peluse_> thanks acoles for the huge help on the fi patch!
19:25:17 <peluse_> yes
19:25:18 <tdasilva> notmyname: sorry, little confused. you said "feature freeze for openstack kilo is in 2 weeks"
19:25:27 <notmyname> tdasilva: sorry, dependency freeze
19:25:50 <tdasilva> notmyname: got it, thx
19:27:07 <notmyname> #startvote Do we commit to an EC beta in Kilo? yes, no, delay
19:27:08 <openstack> Begin voting on: Do we commit to an EC beta in Kilo? Valid vote options are yes, no, delay.
19:27:09 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
19:27:18 <notmyname> for delay, I mean, make that choice later
19:27:23 <acoles> notmyname: you asked for commitment and it all went quiet ;)
19:27:26 <notmyname> yes to commit to kilo
19:27:32 <notmyname> no to have ec after kilo
19:27:32 <tdasilva> lol
19:27:33 <peluse_> #vote yes
19:27:38 <notmyname> acoles: I see that
19:27:42 <mattoliverau> notmyname: now that is the question :) so long as its "beta" i say yes. i've been impressed in testingbasic put/pull. nice work everyone
19:27:57 <mattoliverau> #vote yes
19:27:58 <notmyname> it will definitely only be a beta
19:28:20 <notmyname> but if we commit to it, then we will cut scope to have something in kilo before we drop ec from kilo
19:28:21 <clayg> #vote yes
19:28:43 <peluse_> and i think thats good   we need real feedback on perf and usage even if were 100%done
19:28:45 <notmyname> I've been impressed with the momentum over the last two weeks and so I
19:28:46 <notmyname> #vote yes
19:28:48 <clayg> to having the current best ec implementation we can muster up for a review to merge to master two weeks before the first RC get's cut
19:28:55 <zaitcev> #vote yes
19:28:58 <notmyname> clayg: yes, that
19:28:58 <kota_> #vote yes
19:29:02 <lpabon> #vote yes
19:29:13 * lpabon if my vote counts for anything :-)
19:29:20 <notmyname> acoles: cschwede: tdasilva ?
19:29:20 <acoles> i'm trusting clayg peluse_ and other opinions, haven;t looked at state of tests
19:29:26 <acoles> #vote yes
19:29:29 <notmyname> lpabon: you just volunteered to do reviews! ;-)
19:29:30 <tdasilva> #vote yes
19:29:32 <tdasilva> i think we can do it
19:29:35 <lpabon> lol
19:29:54 <clayg> acoles: we desperately need to start working on tests - but there's still functionality we know is missing :'(
19:29:59 <notmyname> #endvote
19:30:00 <openstack> Voted on "Do we commit to an EC beta in Kilo?" Results are
19:30:01 <openstack> yes (9): notmyname, acoles, tdasilva, kota_, mattoliverau, lpabon, peluse_, clayg, zaitcev
19:30:13 <notmyname> no one opposed. that's great!
19:30:26 <tdasilva> what was the diff between no and delay anyway?
19:30:37 <notmyname> delay = choose later
19:30:42 <tdasilva> oh, delay the vote
19:31:09 <acoles> tdasilva: delay always appeal to me when faced with a decision ;)
19:31:20 <notmyname> ok, I've got to run now. I'll be back in #openstack-swift in a while
19:31:32 <tdasilva> acoles: understand you completely
19:31:34 <tdasilva> :)
19:31:42 <notmyname> now the scary part starts with poepl outside of the devs start to get involved and plan around our commitment
19:31:51 <notmyname> :-)
19:32:11 <notmyname> thank you for coming and discussing. thanks for working on swift
19:32:15 <notmyname> #endmeeting