05:34:52 <vnyyad> #startmeeting taas
05:34:53 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jun  8 05:34:52 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is vnyyad. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
05:34:54 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
05:34:56 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'taas'
05:35:10 <yamamoto_> hi
05:35:32 <vnyyad> #topic mitaka release compatibility
05:36:10 <yamamoto_> it's mine
05:36:26 <yamamoto_> do we still want to make a release for mitaka?
05:36:30 <vnyyad> yamamoto: hi
05:37:10 <vnyyad> yamamoto: i guess if its important for acceptance we should
05:37:59 <yamamoto_> i think nothing wrong with targetting newton wrt acceptance
05:38:30 <yamamoto_> recently merged patch introduced "newton" migration directory
05:38:47 <yamamoto_> if we still want to target to mitaka, we should rename it
05:38:52 <yamamoto_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/320181/
05:39:01 <vnyyad> ok
05:39:58 <vnyyad> any opinions from others?
05:40:21 <yamamoto_> i don't have strong opinion either ways.
05:40:41 <yamamoto_> we (midokura) want to see mitaka release as we want the feature for mitaka though.
05:40:50 <yamamoto_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/307708/ related patch
05:41:18 <vnyyad> I guess we should bring it up again when more people are there in the meeting
05:41:30 <soichi> i think Newton is good, if it is no problem for acceptance
05:41:56 <vnyyad> soichi: we must check that
05:42:04 <soichi> sure
05:42:56 <vnyyad> also has there been any update on process to get accepted
05:43:35 <vnyyad> i remember anil mentioning that there will be a objective list of things to do before we can get accepted
05:43:59 <yamamoto_> the acceptance thing reminded me about the spec.  any chance to merge?
05:44:01 <yamamoto_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/256210/
05:44:27 <vnyyad> yamamoto_:i think we should get the current spec accepted in the basic form
05:44:41 <vnyyad> no more edits till we get in, what do you think
05:45:07 <yamamoto_> accepted by who?
05:45:34 <vnyyad> accepted in neutron
05:46:12 <yamamoto_> what do you mean by "no more edits"?
05:46:50 <vnyyad> i mean edits to improve are ok.. but we can aviod adding any major changes to the data model
05:46:59 <vnyyad> like adding filtering or so
05:47:10 <yamamoto_> i agree.
05:47:27 <soichi> vnyyad: +1
05:49:12 <vnyyad> to repeat my question again: has there been any communication as to what are the TODO list to achieve before we get accepted?
05:49:16 <yamamoto_> well, depends on how long it takes.  but i agree that we should not start adding major features right now.
05:49:30 <vnyyad> yamamoto_ : +1
05:50:42 <yamamoto_> fix bugs and improve tests?
05:51:06 <vnyyad> ok, so i guess we should make them our priority
05:51:31 <soichi> +1
05:52:04 <vnyyad> +1
05:52:22 <vnyyad> should we make a list of it to traget it one by one?
05:52:24 <yamamoto_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312199/12/specs/newton/neutron-stadium.rst@80
05:52:38 <vnyyad> yamamoto_:thanks!
05:54:24 <vnyyad> next topic?
05:55:11 <yamamoto_> i think major items we can do right now is 1) l2 agent extension 2) osc plugin 3) test improvements
05:55:28 <yamamoto_> i think 1) and 2) are reedip's todo list
05:55:49 <vnyyad> ok
05:55:55 <yamamoto_> i guess someone can help him and/or take over
05:57:01 <vnyyad> +1
05:57:14 <vnyyad> is he in the meeting
05:57:42 <yamamoto_> it seems he is not here today
05:58:11 <vnyyad> ok we should check with him next week then
05:58:28 <yamamoto_> or contact him offline
05:58:43 <vnyyad> ok will do that
05:58:49 <yamamoto_> let's move on
05:59:44 <vnyyad> ok
05:59:57 <vnyyad> #topic: review inbox
06:00:12 <yamamoto_> i put a link on the wiki
06:00:24 <soichi> it looks quite fine for me
06:00:30 <yamamoto_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/dashboard/?title=tap-as-a-service+Review+Inbox&foreach=%28project%3Aopenstack%2Ftap-as-a-service%29+status%3Aopen+NOT+owner%3Aself+NOT+label%3AWorkflow%3C%3D-1+label%3AVerified%3E%3D1%2Cjenkins+NOT+label%3ACode-Review%3E%3D-2%2Cself+branch%3Amaster&Needs+Feedback+%28Changes+older+than+5+days+that+have+not+been+reviewed+by+anyone%29=NOT+label%3ACode-Review%3C%3D
06:00:31 <yamamoto_> 2+age%3A5d&You+are+a+reviewer%2C+but+haven%27t+voted+in+the+current+revision=reviewer%3Aself&Needs+final+%2B2=label%3ACode-Review%3E%3D2+NOT%28reviewerin%3Atap-as-a-service-core+label%3ACode-Review%3C%3D-1%29+limit%3A50&Passed+Jenkins%2C+No+Negative+Core+Feedback=NOT+label%3ACode-Review%3E%3D2+NOT%28reviewerin%3Atap-as-a-service-core+label%3ACode-Review%3C%3D-1%29+limit%3A50&Wayward+Changes+%28Cha
06:00:31 <yamamoto_> nges+with+no+code+review+in+the+last+2days%29=NOT+label%3ACode-Review%3C%3D2+age%3A2d
06:00:46 <yamamoto_> hm, it seems too long to paste :-)
06:01:06 <yamamoto_> #link https://goo.gl/DdeEy8
06:01:37 <yamamoto_> i'd encourage everyone here to bookmark it. :-)
06:01:47 <vnyyad> +1
06:02:42 <vnyyad> ok then we move on
06:02:55 <vnyyad> if no more comments on this
06:03:07 <yamamoto_> that's all from me
06:03:35 <vnyyad> #topic State transition model for TaaS objects
06:03:53 <vnyyad> i added a proposed state transition diagram to the agenda
06:03:55 <vnyyad> https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/8/8a/Status_Flow_Chart.png
06:04:09 <vnyyad> check if you guys can open it
06:05:32 <yamamoto_> i tend to think agent-level port-unbound should not affect this state
06:06:03 <yamamoto_> and there should be a way to get out of error state.  eg. removal of resource
06:06:42 <soichi> i guess it is beteer to separate creating error and agent-level port-unbound
06:07:04 <vnyyad> i iguess its good to indicate the agent level port upbound
06:07:53 <vnyyad> soichi: i could be good to place port level unbound in a separate state just for indicating it so
06:08:11 <yamamoto_> at least it should not be called "error", as it's a quite normal condition.
06:08:12 <soichi> okay
06:08:19 <vnyyad> yamamoto_: +1
06:08:27 <soichi> yamamoto_: +1
06:08:43 <vnyyad> and also the action to get out of this stats needs to be indicated
06:08:47 <vnyyad> so will add that
06:09:09 <vnyyad> i guess then we call it port unbound state :)
06:09:53 <soichi> it sounds okay for me
06:09:55 <yamamoto_> it sounds clearer :)
06:10:17 <vnyyad> will edit and re upload  it
06:10:43 <yamamoto_> vnyyad: thank you!
06:10:53 <soichi> thank you
06:10:53 <vnyyad> any other state missing or transition issues missing?
06:11:05 <vnyyad> thanks!
06:11:59 <vnyyad> ok any other comments or topics to discuss?
06:12:19 <soichi> i'd like to confirm that adding only one status feild is fine on today's discussion
06:12:51 <vnyyad> yeah i guess so, one status with multiple states
06:13:14 <soichi> okay, thank you
06:14:14 <vnyyad> cool then, we go one status then
06:14:32 <vnyyad> any other topic to discuss
06:14:36 <yamamoto_> vnyyad: i guess some "updating" state is necessary (in future?)
06:15:09 <vnyyad> yamamoto: yes, very much
06:16:40 <vnyyad> any other topic
06:17:21 <soichi> i don't have
06:17:45 <vnyyad> shall we close
06:17:53 <yamamoto_> nothing from me
06:18:00 <soichi> i apologies for absence next week IRC
06:18:24 <vnyyad> ok, thanks guys for todays meeting...
06:18:49 <vnyyad> see you all next week
06:18:56 <soichi> bye
06:18:59 <yamamoto_> bye
06:19:00 <kaz> bye
06:19:09 <vnyyad> bye
06:19:19 <vnyyad> #endmeeting