21:01:00 <notmyname> #startmeeting swift
21:01:01 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May  4 21:01:00 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is notmyname. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:01:02 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:01:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'swift'
21:01:07 <notmyname> who's here for the swift team meeting?
21:01:16 <timburke> o/
21:01:17 <cschwede> o/
21:01:18 <nadeem> o/
21:01:18 * torgomatic is just here for the snacks
21:01:19 <ntata> hello!
21:01:20 <redbo> me
21:01:24 <tdasilva> o/
21:01:28 <mattoliverau> o/
21:01:28 <redbo> oh wait are there snacks?
21:01:29 <jrichli> snacks, where?
21:01:30 <kota_> hello
21:01:37 <sgundur-> hi
21:01:42 <acoles> here
21:01:48 <bkeller`> o/
21:01:49 <timburke> ...did you guys not bring snacks? i brought snacks
21:02:01 <notmyname> timburke: did you bring enough to share with everyone?
21:02:02 <jrichli> ah, found some chips
21:02:08 <hurricanerix> o/
21:02:14 <notmyname> acoles probably has some topics
21:02:14 <dmorita> o/
21:02:18 <timburke> notmyname: if you can get here, probably
21:02:27 <jrichli> mmm, topics ...
21:02:37 <acoles> not on pay day
21:02:43 <jrichli> ha!
21:02:43 <notmyname> *groan*
21:02:59 <notmyname> acoles: so yuri had some snacks....
21:03:07 <jrichli> GROAN
21:03:24 <notmyname> ok, let's get started :-)
21:03:29 <notmyname> agenda is at
21:03:34 <acoles> wait, is yuri on board?
21:03:34 <notmyname> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Swift
21:04:04 <mmotiani_> hi
21:04:20 <notmyname> #topic post summit
21:04:27 <notmyname> so we had a summit last week
21:04:34 <notmyname> I though it was pretty great. what'd you think?
21:04:53 <joeljwright> was great :)
21:04:55 <notmyname> (a few topics to cover, but I'd love to hear any feedback first)
21:05:24 <ntata> it was great! :)
21:05:43 <timburke> so...much...meat...
21:05:51 <jrichli> good stuff.  yep
21:05:53 <acoles> timburke: +1
21:06:01 <bkeller`> maybe more chairs
21:06:14 <acoles> was good meeting newcomers in person
21:06:26 <acoles> bkeller`: +1 recurring problem
21:06:34 <kota_> acoles: +1
21:06:59 <notmyname> how was the balance of conference talks to fishbowl sessions (ops/community feedback) and the working sessions?
21:07:11 <notmyname> anything we need to focus on or do differently next time?
21:07:19 <joeljwright> was a shame to lose people during the working sessions
21:07:20 <notmyname> did we have to much time or to little time?
21:07:34 <mattoliverau> no, I think it was a great mix
21:07:41 <jrichli> joeljwright: +1 - too many conflicts this time
21:07:41 <acoles> op sessions were good, and fishbowl format seemed to be ok for them
21:07:44 <notmyname> joeljwright: because of the conference stuff?
21:07:47 <mattoliverau> meeting to fish bowls i mean
21:07:58 <joeljwright> meetings to fish bowls was a good mix
21:08:11 <cutforth> hello - sorry i'm late
21:08:12 <bkeller`> i think some of the stuff in the meetings could have been moved to friday before everyone split up
21:08:15 <clayg> notmyname: having *two* fishbowls on ops (because of ops summit) was nice - there's always stuff to discuss there
21:08:25 <cschwede> joeljwright: same for me, to many schedule conflicts
21:08:26 <joeljwright> but the talks overlapping so much with the working sessions was a shame
21:08:35 <mattoliverau> who would have thought 2 ops sessions where completely taken up.. that's awesome
21:08:50 <notmyname> the overlaps are always an issue, to some extent
21:08:54 <jrichli> +1 fishbowls for ops good
21:08:58 <clayg> notmyname: won't be anymore!
21:09:07 <notmyname> we'll see. TBD I think
21:09:09 <notmyname> the working sessions were the most informal/unstructured we've had at any summit
21:09:12 <acoles> notmyname: imho we did not have too little time. did we even get to composite tokens? sharding?
21:09:17 <redbo> It's a tough week, I propose that we change the summits to one day a week for a month.
21:09:20 <notmyname> acoles: nope
21:09:25 <clayg> notmyname: yeah the working sessions felt pretty hack-a-thon-y
21:09:32 <notmyname> clayg: in a good way?
21:09:58 <notmyname> redbo: or "meet from 12-4, then again from 9pm to 1am?"
21:10:24 <redbo> If the summits could be from 8pm to 4am, that would help me too.
21:10:25 <clayg> notmyname: it's fine for us?  some people seem to have maybe struggled with lots going on, lots of people talking about different things, no way to "drop-in" to swift working session for a specific topic and still make it out to other teams more "scheduled" stuff
21:10:26 <jrichli> I though thursday breaking up was good.  IMHO, friday was too loose.  for example, there was nothing captured on etherpad for that day at all.
21:10:56 <bkeller`> ^
21:11:05 <jrichli> i guess because friday, i didnt know where people went.  i only know about the groups i was in
21:11:22 <clayg> jrichli: we should probably just organizie our friday's like we do the other days - it's supposed to be different - but we sorta know how we like to work when we get together - just a little structure
21:11:27 <notmyname> was that different that the firday at previous summits?
21:11:28 <clayg> anyway - it was great
21:11:38 <notmyname> clayg: that's a great idea
21:11:50 <clayg> notmyname: no, friday summit *used* to be the closest we get to hack-a-thons
21:11:59 <jrichli> friday at tokyo was better - agian, cause i could at least see the different groups and find out what was being discussed if i wanted to
21:12:05 <notmyname> ok
21:12:09 <clayg> notmyname: but what we really want is somewhere in the middle - and I think wednesday afternoon and thursday we hit it
21:12:27 <joeljwright> clayg: +1
21:12:29 <clayg> i'm trying to remember friday tokyo
21:12:38 <pdardeau> clayg: +1
21:12:38 <acoles> clayg: my thought exactly :)
21:12:47 <redbo> I think I went to robot restaurant
21:12:48 <jrichli> it was a tiny room, so some left - but sort of lingered around the room
21:12:57 <notmyname> while I really like the "multiple conversations at once" think (despite bad acoustics), we had some whole-group discussions with slightly more group discussion and structure
21:13:07 <tdasilva> clayg: i don't think you can remember friday tokyo ;)
21:13:16 <jrichli> my last comment was about tokyo
21:13:24 <notmyname> tdasilva: yeah, we kept wondering where he and paul were ;-)
21:13:28 <tdasilva> hehe
21:13:29 <clayg> jrichli: oh right - i remmeber a lot of hall way at toyko - was the friday in the same throne room?  we talked about keymasters in the hall?
21:13:31 <acoles> friday tokyo was like speed dating meets swift topics
21:13:49 <jrichli> yep, keymaster in the hall ... wiht the knife
21:14:08 <acoles> jrichli: has a thing about knives ;)
21:14:15 <clayg> lol
21:14:17 <jrichli> lol.  i was thinking of Clue
21:14:32 <clayg> jrichli: acoles' people probably have a different name for it
21:14:51 <clayg> jrichli: and he probably invited the game (but didn't get credit)
21:14:52 <acoles> we do. whatever it might be.
21:15:00 <mattoliverau> yeah the game is cluedo
21:15:03 <acoles> clayg: lol
21:15:04 <notmyname> I can tell we all jsut spent a week together. so many inside jokes
21:15:06 <clayg> mattoliverau: yeah that's it!
21:15:22 <clayg> good times
21:15:24 <notmyname> ok, so austin formats...
21:15:26 <redbo> I got several knives in tokyo, I like them.
21:15:39 <notmyname> let's try to do more like wed afternoon and thursday
21:15:50 <tdasilva> what's up with texas and knives
21:15:58 <acoles> jrichli: clayg OIC I get it now, in the hall...
21:16:17 <jrichli> redbo: ill have to check it out *if* i happen to go to San Antonio soon.  acoles :-)
21:16:25 <notmyname> (or at least the parts of thursday that weren't the multi-hour goland discussion? ;-)
21:16:42 <acoles> notmyname: we always seem to mis-fire on our first session, then get going, maybe next time we should try to remind ourselves how to kick start the sessions
21:16:58 <jrichli> remove a table!
21:17:00 <notmyname> yeah
21:17:03 <notmyname> jrichli: yes!
21:17:42 <notmyname> shall we move on to specific post-summit follow up stuff now?
21:17:45 <acoles> so whatever context we are in, first remove a table. sounds like a good axiom and I like those.
21:18:10 <notmyname> acoles: might be awkward at dinner
21:18:18 <clayg> rofl
21:18:22 <acoles> rofl too
21:18:27 <jrichli> lol.  could be abstracted to removing barriers
21:18:29 <hurricanerix> I would appreciate it if all table jokes going forward were updated to the appropriate SQL syntax...
21:18:32 <redbo> (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
21:18:43 <notmyname> #topic post-summit: no more specs
21:18:45 <clayg> it's too much
21:19:06 <notmyname> one thing we discussed at the summit is how specs are (not) working for us
21:19:15 <jrichli> redbo: so great
21:19:16 <notmyname> here's the email I'm going to send
21:19:17 <notmyname> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ZHWszY0GuN
21:19:33 <notmyname> but first I need to copy over the existing open specs to a wiki page
21:19:57 <notmyname> once that's done (this afternoon?) then I'll send that email to the -dev mailing list
21:20:19 <mattoliverau> great
21:21:07 <redbo> I like it
21:21:15 <notmyname> :-)
21:21:24 <clayg> notmyname: i like the postive message - i think the problems you've identified with specs-as-code-review are sort of universially accepted
21:21:48 <notmyname> also, it's pretty close to your original wording? ;-)
21:22:20 <notmyname> it's definitely the result of a group effort. thank you for your help on it
21:22:21 <clayg> notmyname: but this message has a hint of hopeful ignorence - there's a lot of stuff we're going to have to "figure out" that's not listed there - esp. the note about "project management planning" that review-landed-specs were sort of granfathered into
21:22:31 <mattoliverau> notmyname: love the 'where hope goes to die" part!
21:22:39 <notmyname> mattoliverau: that was fun to write :-)
21:23:05 <notmyname> clayg: yeah, definitely. and jrichli has brought up some very valid concerns related to discoverability of previous conversations
21:23:05 <joeljwright> don't forget 'facilitate communication without encouraging despair'
21:23:10 <clayg> notmyname: it's probably fine to broadcase the new reality - but the nuanced situation on the ground is we're moving a lot closer back to square one - despite a good attempt at specs - we're still trying to figure it out - and for now we want less rules not more
21:23:11 <joeljwright> another choice phrase :D
21:23:40 <notmyname> clayg: yep. my feelings exactly
21:24:00 <tdasilva> yeah, i was wondering if that should be made mroe clear, that we are still just trying to figure out...
21:24:23 <notmyname> if anyone has further comments, feel free to reach out to me publicly or privately
21:24:44 <tdasilva> also, do you think it would be helpful to point out to folks that when writing specs it is usefult to use a tool that makes providing comments back easy
21:25:00 <jrichli> the mail LGTM
21:25:23 <notmyname> tdasilva: for now, less structure the better IMO. let's address that if we actually have people who are using tools that don't encourage feedback
21:25:34 <clayg> tdasilva: i'm not sure we know that for sure - if the easiest way to discuss is a spec is to pick up a phone/skype/hangout - maybe that's an imporvement over comments on a etherpad/wiki/gerrit ?
21:25:54 <clayg> notmyname: +1
21:26:17 <tdasilva> notmyname, clayg: good points
21:26:23 <notmyname> #topic post-summit: crypto merge plan
21:26:29 <clayg> oh snap
21:26:29 <notmyname> acoles: jrichli: wheeee!
21:26:37 <bkeller`> good luck
21:26:43 <notmyname> is https://trello.com/b/63l5zQhq/swift-encryption up to date?
21:27:01 <acoles> notmyname:  reasonably up to date and jrichli has added more this week
21:27:05 <notmyname> greap
21:27:09 <notmyname> *great
21:27:14 <jrichli> should be, for the most part.  there were some items disucssed last week - i think we tried to capture those
21:27:32 <jrichli> will look at that in the next couple days
21:27:37 <acoles> and I wrote an overview doc draft which will help as an on-ramp I hope for reviews. it sould be a spec , but...
21:27:45 <notmyname> ok. looks like a lot in the todo column
21:28:06 <acoles> https://review.openstack.org/312096
21:28:26 <notmyname> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/swift+branch:feature/crypto
21:28:30 <jrichli> notmyname: make sure you are looking at "reduced scope" column
21:28:48 <notmyname> jrichli: yeah, that's the longest one!
21:29:00 <jrichli> :-( oh.
21:29:19 <jrichli> i guess it grew from last week.  believe it or not, that is progress in a way
21:29:26 <notmyname> with the current crypto patches open, where's the place to start?
21:29:58 <jrichli> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/305794/ is next to merge
21:29:58 <patchbot> jrichli: patch 305794 - swift (feature/crypto) - crypto - only set body crypto meta if body is read...
21:30:17 <notmyname> ok
21:30:22 <acoles> notmyname: swift priority review page
21:30:37 <notmyname> ah. perfect
21:31:19 <jrichli> timburke: thanks for the review
21:31:27 <acoles> notmyname: there are a few "cleanup" patches in a chain from patch 305794 which I'd like to merge soon
21:31:27 <patchbot> acoles: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/305794/ - swift (feature/crypto) - crypto - only set body crypto meta if body is read...
21:31:44 <notmyname> and so patch 156923 is what we need outside fo the crypto branch
21:31:44 <patchbot> notmyname: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156923/ - swift - Refactor server side copy as middleware
21:32:10 <acoles> notmyname: oh yeah, of course if we have review cycle please review copy middleware ^^
21:32:22 <acoles> will help so much to get that on master
21:32:35 <notmyname> ok
21:32:52 <jrichli> yes.  tdasilva said he was going to upload a patch soon to address the recent comments
21:33:07 <clayg> tdasilva has the ball
21:33:19 <notmyname> acoles: and did you already pull out the BYOK stuff? I don't think I realized that it was actually done (or alternatively that it was so relatively small)
21:33:22 <tdasilva> almost there
21:33:26 <notmyname> tdasilva: thanks
21:34:18 <acoles> notmyname: not yet, its not huge
21:34:27 <notmyname> ok
21:34:32 <jrichli> did we decide to pull it out now for sure? i thought we were maybe going to see if we could find solutions to potential issues now
21:34:45 <acoles> the etherpad says we did :)
21:34:49 <notmyname> :-)
21:34:52 <clayg> boom!
21:34:54 <clayg> etherpad don't lie
21:34:57 <notmyname> but I saw a video of a demo where it worked!
21:34:57 <jrichli> ah, ok.  lol
21:35:04 <jrichli> i know, right?
21:35:05 <mattoliverau> I thought no BYOK for initial merge, it'll be a follow up to master
21:35:15 <notmyname> right. that's what we said last week
21:35:24 <jrichli> ok
21:35:30 <notmyname> to keep scope smaller to focus on getting something done rather than everything done all at once
21:35:49 <mattoliverau> and having to potentially define all the areas that wont work with it
21:36:16 <notmyname> and IMO also because jsut getting cluster-key encryption is a lot easier that trying to describe to users "if you do it this other way, some stuff probably breaks"
21:36:31 <notmyname> mattoliverau: yep
21:36:32 <notmyname> mattoliverau: that's the biggest issue I have with it
21:36:32 <acoles> yep, much as I'd like to have it there, I agree with John that we shoot for minimum useful feature set to get on master and then improve from there.
21:36:36 <clayg> i acctually had some thoughts on how a byok scheme might work with an integrated keyserver & auth & service accounts - and it could potentially allow some neat features for users (secure erase) - but I didn't want to bring it up because I didn't want to distract from storage-service-managed keys
21:36:41 <joeljwright> acoles: +1
21:36:53 <notmyname> clayg: cool
21:36:58 <acoles> notmyname: exactly, BYOK could drag us into pondering too many unknowns
21:37:07 <jrichli> clayg: write it down somewhere for later :-)
21:37:10 <notmyname> ok, looking at the time, let's move on to the next topic
21:37:14 <notmyname> clayg: topic -- link
21:37:19 <clayg> it's a little more than MVP tho - there's a bunch of caveats with a pure BYOK (cluster only has access to decrypted data when user hands them a key)
21:37:46 <notmyname> #topic feature/hummingbird plan
21:37:54 <clayg> zomgreplication!
21:37:55 <notmyname> the other biggest topic of the week...
21:38:07 <clayg> and all the buzz on the ML!
21:38:13 <notmyname> summary of what we talked about last week and the plan for hummingbird within swift:
21:38:16 <notmyname> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/093680.html
21:38:40 <notmyname> which prompted the TC to ask for a governance resolution, thus resulting in this email
21:38:42 <notmyname> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/093795.html
21:38:48 <notmyname> (and subsequent replies)
21:38:54 <notmyname> and this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312267/
21:38:55 <patchbot> notmyname: patch 312267 - governance - update approved programming languages to include go
21:39:17 <clayg> notmyname: you've been busy
21:39:26 <notmyname> so lots of stuff going on there right now.
21:40:04 <notmyname> the biggest questions are around the CI/gate support. eg how to reference dependencies and stuff like that. there's been a little bit around sharing code and all that
21:40:23 <notmyname> but the good news is that there's at least one other project that's already also looking at having a go component too
21:40:42 * clayg suspects redbo was involved ^
21:40:43 <notmyname> (designate -- the dns service thing)
21:40:57 <dfg_> huh- i didn't know that
21:40:59 <clayg> redbo loves dns
21:41:02 <mattoliverau> lol
21:41:15 <notmyname> point is, there's lots of questions to answer, and not just about what we do with our own codebase
21:41:27 <cschwede> iirc one of the keynotes, Intel also ported (part of?) Nova internally, so there is some interest in other projects as well
21:41:28 <notmyname> the good news is that we've got a little while to figure some of this out
21:41:52 <notmyname> cschwede: yeah. they did. but they kinda did it completely separately from the rest of the community, at that hasn't gone over well
21:42:08 <cschwede> notmyname: yep, indeed
21:42:10 <clayg> redbo loves community
21:42:16 <notmyname> I'm actually hoping that doesn't "poison the well" about this stuff
21:42:18 <nadeem> :D
21:42:35 <redbo> I haven't really seen it, but I did watch one episode where they play D&D and it was pretty good.
21:43:08 <mattoliverau> lol, great comeback!
21:43:09 <dfg_> notmyname: you should just add the header "adapt or die" to help grease the wheels
21:43:19 <clayg> notmyname: so... in the meantime
21:43:27 <notmyname> dfg_: yeah, ultimatimes are awesoem
21:43:29 <pdardeau> dfg_: good one!
21:43:29 <notmyname> ok, so I'm hoping that while acoles and jrichli and team are getting the last crypto patches landed, we can answer the questions specifically about the minimal feature set that we want to land
21:44:06 <notmyname> then we spend the rest of the cycle actually getting that ready to land and helping the rest of the openstack community figure out the other questions
21:44:30 <notmyname> and that's the plan
21:44:34 <notmyname> #topic post-summit: other stuff
21:45:02 <notmyname> client updates? tiering? symlinks? sharding? other stuff was discussed or should have been discussed and there's always a ton going on
21:45:02 <joeljwright> notmyname: did you get anywhere with docs versioning?
21:45:08 <notmyname> any quick updates from those?
21:45:14 <notmyname> joeljwright: nope, not yet
21:45:16 <dfg_> i will say i've been surprised about how receptive things have been so far. when i think back to all the flame wars on openstack dev over the years...
21:45:25 <dfg_> but anyway...
21:45:49 <jrichli> I got a brain dump from hrou on symlinks and plan to get together a wiki or something that summarizes history and where we are at now
21:46:09 <kota_> jrichli: sounds great.
21:46:11 <notmyname> jrichli: thank you for taking over on that one! :-)
21:46:26 <clayg> jrichli: just encrypt that and throw away the key until after your *other* huge feature lands!?
21:46:36 <joeljwright> :D
21:46:38 <ntata> jrichli, thank you
21:47:02 <redbo> I'm not super happy that if people try things out on their own, like if it's something they don't even know if it will work, everyone screams "4 opens!" and shuns them forever.
21:47:28 <mattoliverau> I pulled Sam and John aside thurning Thursday sessions and talked about sharding problems I had.. Sam gave me enough to go on. I really also need to do some benchmarking (IBM guys were doing that but have disapeeared).
21:47:54 <joeljwright> redbo: you have a point there
21:48:02 <bkeller`> i've been talking to searchlight about notifications. hopefully i'll have a plan put together by next week for feedback
21:48:07 <pdardeau> mattoliverau: remember mmotiani is willing to help!
21:48:10 <clayg> redbo: well idk about the shuns forever part - but there's something to be said about failing openly
21:48:26 <acoles> jrichli: i wrote some stuff down on the plane about what clayg and I and maybe others discussed about symlinks
21:48:36 <joeljwright> it is hard to make the transition from private to public though
21:48:38 <mmotiani_> mattoliverau: I can help
21:48:39 <joeljwright> hard to let go
21:48:42 <mattoliverau> pdardeau: mmotiani_ great!
21:48:49 <clayg> jrichli: he's only saying that so he can document how wrong I was later when he has a better idea
21:48:51 <jrichli> acoles: great!  where?
21:49:11 <notmyname> jrichli: acoles: seat-back pockent of 33D
21:49:16 <joeljwright> :D
21:49:32 <jrichli> notmyname: sounds about right!
21:49:33 <acoles> on paper :( battery was dead. and I'd also like us to write down once and for all why a POST cannot update two resources - what we went through on a whitebard in Austin
21:49:33 <mattoliverau> lol
21:49:36 <joeljwright> 33D? at least he had an aisle seat!
21:49:44 <acoles> notmyname: not far off
21:49:47 <notmyname> acoles: yes. so we don't have to do it yet again!
21:49:59 <acoles> can jrichli go look for that whiteboard
21:50:00 <tdasilva> acoles: I had a good discussion here on Monday of lessons learned with tiering in gluster and ceph, need to find a way to share and continue discussion...
21:50:06 <clayg> acoles: you mean toyko - or maybe you mean austin hackathon '15
21:50:18 <acoles> clayg: those too ;)
21:50:28 <notmyname> ok...gotta move on
21:50:37 <clayg> tdasilva: oh that's interesting...
21:50:45 <acoles> clayg: actually I'm on board with your thinking
21:50:48 <notmyname> if you're thinking about something, write it down and link to it on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/ideas
21:50:53 <kota_> I talked about high-level overview of composite ring with pdardeau in Thu morning, and probably we need more continuous discussin for implementation secific side in this cycle.
21:51:12 <notmyname> #topic rolling upgrade test status
21:51:13 <kota_> notmyname: exactly.
21:51:22 <notmyname> cschwede: you're still waiting on patch 297311 to land
21:51:23 <patchbot> notmyname: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/297311/ - openstack-infra/devstack-gate - Run swift services on subnode
21:51:27 <notmyname> cschwede: that's the blocker right?
21:51:31 <redbo> clayg: maybe we need a failed ideas wiki page too
21:51:35 <cschwede> notmyname: no, the blocker is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304465/
21:51:35 <patchbot> cschwede: patch 304465 - openstack-infra/devstack-gate - Use subnodes for Swift storage nodes in a multinod...
21:51:45 <clayg> redbo: it's a large set :\
21:51:52 <notmyname> cschwede: ok, thanks
21:51:54 <ntata> jrichli, acoles, tdasilva I'm interested in being a part of further understanding and discussing symlinks.. Was a part of most of the discussions at the summit..
21:52:15 <cschwede> notmyname: i might abandon the other one, need to re-check. but patch 304465 is the important one
21:52:15 <patchbot> cschwede: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304465/ - openstack-infra/devstack-gate - Use subnodes for Swift storage nodes in a multinod...
21:52:49 <cschwede> notmyname: i will ping infra beginning of next week, asking for comments on it
21:52:50 <notmyname> cschwede: ok. etherpad needs updating
21:52:51 <jrichli> ntata: great!  we will keep you informed
21:52:59 <notmyname> cschwede: great. let me know where I can help
21:53:04 <ntata> jrichli, thanks!
21:53:06 <notmyname> ok, last topic
21:53:06 <acoles> ntata: sure, hopefully jrichli can keep us all in the loop somehow
21:53:10 <notmyname> #topic notmyname needs help
21:53:17 <ntata> acoles, +1
21:53:34 <notmyname> while we could spend a *long* time on this topic...
21:53:39 <mattoliverau> lol
21:53:44 <joeljwright> :)
21:53:48 <clayg> i have to pee
21:53:56 <notmyname> there are 2 things specifically I'd like to get help with
21:54:00 <redbo> cherish that, clayg
21:54:12 <notmyname> first, does anyone remember gholt's ring docs?
21:54:17 <jrichli> oh. that is one for my quotes compilation
21:54:38 <clayg> notmyname: I do!
21:54:39 <notmyname> turns out they disappeared from the internet, but I talked to him and he found an old copy on the wayback machine
21:54:55 <clayg> notmyname: that was back from before I hated rings with a burning passion of a thousand suns - good times
21:55:01 <clayg> notmyname: yay!
21:55:09 <notmyname> and greg gave me a pdf version of it and his blessing to include it upstream in swift's doc tree
21:55:21 <notmyname> so I'ld like help from someone to convert it to .rst and propose it to swift
21:55:30 <pdardeau> notmyname: i'll take it
21:55:33 <clayg> whoot!  we need to add a section on stable rebalancing tho - it was always decidely lacking from the blog series
21:55:37 <notmyname> pdardeau: thanks. I'll email it to you
21:55:44 <notmyname> next thing...
21:56:16 <notmyname> I've been promising to migrate the pyeclib/liberasure code repos into the openstack namespace (yay big tent), but I obviously haven't done this yet
21:56:24 <clayg> ohyeah
21:56:31 <kota_> yup
21:56:34 <notmyname> I've looked at some of the docs on how to do it, but I havne't had time to sit down for a few hours and get it all figured out
21:56:56 <notmyname> I'd love for someone to take point on this. I'll be happy to help, but I'm admitting defeat on getting it done myself
21:57:36 <tdasilva> I can do it
21:57:40 <notmyname> mostl it will be walking through the -infra guide and updating yaml files and doing git commands (I think)
21:57:43 * tellesnobrega is away: I'm busy
21:57:43 <notmyname> tdasilva: thank you!
21:58:06 <notmyname> tdasilva: I can email you the summary and links to what I've found
21:58:14 <tdasilva> notmyname: sounds good
21:58:20 <notmyname> pdardeau and tdasilva thank you very much
21:58:31 <notmyname> #topic open discussion
21:58:38 <notmyname> anythign else in the last 2 minutes to discuss?
21:58:52 <clayg> tdasilva: do you have any experience with the stackforge/openstack-affiliated project stuff?
21:59:08 <mattoliverau> In my jeglagged state, I've been looking at Andy's Openstack-Ansible swift repo, that also is used to inst
21:59:08 <mattoliverau> all swift into containers and run functional tests. And attempting to turn it into another SAIO that simul
21:59:08 <mattoliverau> ates the world better.. watch this space.. i hope.
21:59:18 <tdasilva> clayg: a while while back we had to move swiftonfile to stackforge and then to openstack
21:59:23 <clayg> kota_: wouldn't this be basically the same thing you did with swift3?
21:59:28 <notmyname> mattoliverau: cool
21:59:35 <mattoliverau> wow, nice splitting of a line irc client
21:59:36 <cschwede> clarkb: iirc, stackforge is in archive mode
21:59:43 <cschwede> eh, sorry, clayg ^^
21:59:53 <kota_> clayg: ah, i was missing the recent last comment in meeting
21:59:59 <clarkb> cschwede: the stackforge namespace is archived but there are non openstack project hosted under openstack/
22:00:05 <notmyname> sounds like tdasilva is an expert
22:00:15 <clayg> kota_: notmyname was trying to trick someone into doing the pyeclib/libearsure repo migration to openstack
22:00:17 <clarkb> really openstack/ is an implementat detail that has to do with git replication to github. "stackforge" the idea continues to live on
22:00:26 <notmyname> ok, we're at full time
22:00:49 <notmyname> thank you everyone for coming. it was great to see you last week, and than you for your work on swift
22:00:50 <cschwede> clarkb: thx for the details!
22:00:50 <notmyname> #endmeeting