18:00:28 <anteaya> #startmeeting third-party
18:00:28 <openstack> Meeting started Mon May 19 18:00:28 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is anteaya. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:29 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:31 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'third_party'
18:00:42 <anteaya> anyone here for the third-party meeting?
18:00:44 <mestery> o/
18:00:47 <david-lyle> o/
18:00:52 <armax> here
18:00:54 <akerr> o/
18:00:57 <bruff> o/
18:01:01 <luqas> hi
18:01:05 <sc68cal> o/
18:01:24 <krtaylor> o/
18:01:38 <anteaya> great thanks for being here
18:01:41 <devananda> o/
18:01:44 <anteaya> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty
18:01:49 <krtaylor> nice turn out
18:01:52 <anteaya> I have cobbled together an agenda
18:01:55 <anteaya> yes
18:02:03 <anteaya> lets start with that
18:02:17 <anteaya> #topic Welcome and discussion of format and goals (anteaya)
18:02:35 <anteaya> so welcome
18:02:48 <anteaya> thanks for being here on the first day after summit
18:02:49 <jaypipes> o/
18:02:54 <anteaya> and a holiday for some
18:02:56 <anteaya> yay
18:02:59 <chuckC> hi
18:03:14 <anteaya> so for starters this venue is a group effort
18:03:34 <anteaya> myself, krtaylor and jaypipes have agreed to share the leadership baton on this one
18:03:50 <anteaya> so we will be taking turns doing what needs to be done
18:04:15 <anteaya> so the first thing we need to discuss is our goals for this space and how we will format the meetings
18:04:32 <anteaya> I have started an etherpad
18:04:36 <anteaya> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/third-party-meeting-format
18:04:46 <anteaya> let's look at that
18:05:12 <anteaya> please remember to indicate your name in the top right corner of the etherpad
18:05:44 <anteaya> one of the things I think is important to remember and remind all present is the openstack mission
18:05:55 <anteaya> The OpenStack Open Source Cloud Mission:  to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that  will meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless of size, by  being simple to implement and massively scalable.
18:06:08 <anteaya> sorry that should have a tag
18:06:12 <anteaya> #info The OpenStack Open Source Cloud Mission:  to produce the ubiquitous Open Source Cloud Computing platform that  will meet the needs of public and private clouds regardless of size, by  being simple to implement and massively scalable.
18:06:28 <anteaya> there will be some participants in this space that might not already know that
18:06:36 <anteaya> I think this is an important place to begin
18:07:02 <anteaya> I also have included links to info about the foundation and tc, if those attending need that info
18:07:12 <anteaya> any comments or feedback thus far?
18:07:38 <asselin> o/
18:07:39 <mestery> My only comment is I am happy to see this meeting on the docket going forward! It's important to share information cross project on this topic. Thanks anteaya!
18:07:49 <anteaya> great, thanks mestery
18:07:57 <anteaya> okay, let's look at goals
18:08:05 <krtaylor> I have 4 areas of organization that I have been using to frame this - 1) bootstrapping 2) documentation 3) requirements 4) consumability of infra components
18:08:10 <jaypipes> #note stuff to merge/rework into wiki: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/third-party-ci-workshop
18:08:11 <anteaya> line 9 of the etherpad
18:08:39 <anteaya> can we spend some time on goals first?
18:08:48 <anteaya> any objection to discussing goals?
18:08:53 <jaypipes> go for it.
18:08:57 <krtaylor> nope
18:08:57 <anteaya> great
18:09:04 <anteaya> line 9 of the etherpad
18:09:12 <sc68cal> LGTM
18:09:22 <anteaya> I have tried to capture my goals for this space in those 4 points
18:09:31 <anteaya> I will copy and paste for the record keeping
18:09:49 <anteaya> #info Purpose of this use of space and time:
18:09:51 <anteaya> * get OpenStack leads talking to other OpenStack leads about issues and solutions in the third party space
18:09:53 <anteaya> * to work towards a common interface for third party folks who may have contact with multiple projects
18:09:55 <anteaya> * to provide a forum for the curious and for OpenStack programs who are not yet in this space but may be in the future
18:09:57 <anteaya> * to encourage questions from third party folks and support the sourcing of answers
18:10:04 <anteaya> and jaypipes is adding a point
18:10:25 <anteaya> for those not familiar with etherpad, you are welcome to add your thoughts as we go along
18:10:29 <anteaya> please participate
18:11:15 <anteaya> great so jaypipes point is to not just talk but use the verbs document and annotate
18:11:22 <anteaya> good point, and I agree
18:11:31 <jaypipes> ya
18:11:48 <anteaya> krtaylor: are you line 15?
18:11:57 <anteaya> can you expand in channel a bit?
18:12:37 <krtaylor> sure, we discussed a bit at one of the sessions, can't remember which atm
18:13:18 * krtaylor reading jaypipes comment
18:13:32 <akerr> is this stuff like packaging up elastic-recheck for easy deployment in 3rd party systems?
18:13:46 <jaypipes> akerr: that's a great idea.
18:13:58 <jaypipes> akerr: not sure krtaylor's point was specific to that, but related.
18:14:10 <anteaya> akerr: I'm not sure elastic-recheck is part of what is necessary for a third-party ci system to function
18:14:11 <krtaylor> elastic recheck would be later I would think, but yes maybe
18:14:40 <anteaya> if we could start with the necessary, I think that might help
18:14:58 <jaypipes> krtaylor: did I explain your point clearly there?
18:14:58 <anteaya> part of what is happening is that folks are a bit all over the map
18:15:00 <krtaylor> yes, at least initially, I was thinking the core services needed to deploy a upstreamish CI in a 3rd party environment
18:15:18 <anteaya> so we need to have the discussion to get folks on the same page
18:15:34 <krtaylor> jaypipes, yes, thats a good summary
18:15:47 <anteaya> great
18:15:58 <krtaylor> I have started gathering up CI pointers/links
18:16:11 <anteaya> any addtional points we would like to consider under Goals?
18:16:31 * jgriffith doesn't know where to begin exactly :)
18:16:52 <anteaya> I think that I would like to polish what is there and come back next week to ensure this captures why we are here
18:16:59 <anteaya> jgriffith: do expand
18:17:09 <jgriffith> anteaya: not sure how :)
18:17:17 <jgriffith> anteaya: so my thing is this...
18:17:17 <anteaya> take a minute
18:17:27 <jgriffith> anteaya: if the gate runs this, you should run it IMO
18:17:33 <krtaylor> I would like to see general requirements - cross project, then project specific (nova, neutron, etc)
18:17:36 <jgriffith> anteaya: in other words no regex/filtering of tests
18:17:49 <jgriffith> anteaya: we don't do that in the gate, we shouldn't do that for third party plugins
18:17:50 <bruff> Provide some guidance on hardware size, capability, topology needed to participate.
18:17:52 <jgriffith> IMHO
18:17:58 <anteaya> I think we have moved into specifics
18:18:11 <krtaylor> bruff, +1
18:18:13 <jgriffith> anteaya: ok... but you asked :)
18:18:22 <anteaya> I think that fits into the goal of to work towards a common interface
18:18:27 <anteaya> jgriffith: I did, yes
18:18:42 <jgriffith> carry on, I'll get with the program :)
18:18:49 <anteaya> before we move off, I just want to ensure we have captured what people want to offer here
18:18:57 <anteaya> jgriffith: you are doing a great job, thank you
18:19:13 <jgriffith> bruff: +1
18:19:21 <anteaya> so I'd like to polish what we have for goals and bring it back next week
18:19:37 <anteaya> let's move to general outline for the meeting
18:19:42 <anteaya> line 18
18:19:42 <devananda> hardware size to participate will vary by project, i expect
18:19:57 <sc68cal> There will be difficulty with that, at least from Comcast
18:20:08 <sc68cal> we may not be able to disclose make, model, etc.
18:20:18 <devananda> so some guidance from each PTL will be needed
18:20:18 <jaypipes> bruff: slave VMs should have a minimum of 40G local disk, 4GB memory, and 2 CPU cores, in my experience setting up my CI envs. Master can be smaller... 1 core, 2-4G ram, 10G disk.
18:20:51 <sc68cal> ah, if you just say X resource, ok we can do that- sorry was thinking more in-depth requirements
18:20:54 <anteaya> can we get back to outline for meeting?
18:21:01 <anteaya> we have slipped into specifices
18:21:02 <jaypipes> sorry...
18:21:07 <anteaya> that is okay
18:21:17 <anteaya> it shows that people want to talk, which is good
18:21:26 <anteaya> let's work on the format for our meetings
18:21:32 <anteaya> I have a suggested format
18:22:34 <anteaya> Welcome, Announcements, OpenStack program items, Deadlines & Deprecations, Highlighting an Account and Open Discussion
18:22:41 <jaypipes> anteaya: so, I think it would be useful to have a single lead for each week. kind of like a captain... just makes it easier to avoid falling into chaos (as you have rightly noted already here :)... would be good to document that on the etherpad here.
18:22:50 <anteaya> can anyone think of a topic that should get some regular air time
18:23:13 <anteaya> jaypipes: great, have a designated lead would be good
18:23:22 <anteaya> and yes it can be different people
18:23:27 <krtaylor> +1
18:23:29 <jaypipes> anteaya: I believe it is important for the first section of a meeting to be a review of open action items from previous week. no more than 4-5 mins, but important to do it consistently.
18:23:40 <mestery> +1 jaypipes
18:23:49 <anteaya> great
18:23:54 <anteaya> can you add that topic?
18:24:01 <jaypipes> anteaya: so, perhaps right after welcome?
18:24:17 <anteaya> jaypipes: yes, that would be a good place
18:24:22 <jaypipes> done
18:24:28 <anteaya> thanks
18:24:35 <anteaya> staying with meeting format
18:24:48 <anteaya> anyone else feel a topic needs to be added?
18:24:54 <anteaya> or ammended?
18:24:56 <jaypipes> anteaya: what are your ideas on the OpenStack Program items bullet point?
18:25:13 <jaypipes> anteaya: is that to just let the PTLs talk about action items? or...?
18:25:31 <anteaya> for instance cinder might want to talk to nova about how nova does it's dashboard for third-party ci
18:25:40 <anteaya> that would be a good place for that discussion
18:25:49 <jaypipes> oh, got it. ok.
18:25:58 <anteaya> more cross projecty stuff
18:26:11 <anteaya> since we are all great at reading lists
18:26:19 <anteaya> or questions about an other project's list
18:26:30 <krtaylor> or infra talking about a new idea for a third-party component ?
18:26:35 <anteaya> could be
18:26:42 <anteaya> yes, that would be the space for that
18:26:50 <anteaya> openstack talking to openstack
18:27:07 <krtaylor> I'd like to see more of that, it would save them time - communicate it once to this subgroup
18:27:14 <jaypipes> ++
18:27:19 <anteaya> and third-party talking to third-party would be in the deep dive section
18:27:38 <krtaylor> yes, share best-practices
18:27:38 <anteaya> the highlighting a program or account part of the meeting
18:27:42 <anteaya> yes
18:27:59 <jaypipes> k, I'm good with the format as it is now.
18:28:12 <anteaya> so based on those clarifications, does anyone present feel they do not have a platform for the issues they want to discuss?
18:28:34 <jaypipes> I'm good.
18:28:39 <anteaya> great
18:28:49 <krtaylor> good start, it can evolve
18:28:55 <anteaya> yes
18:29:10 <anteaya> and the agenda will be open so folks can add agenda items as they see fit
18:29:18 <mestery> Looks good to me
18:29:23 <anteaya> and the chair can edit as required
18:29:40 <anteaya> now I have kind of elected myself to chair and co-ordinate this effort
18:29:51 <anteaya> does anyone feel that someone else could do a better job?
18:30:06 * krtaylor takes one step back
18:30:10 <anteaya> heh
18:30:28 * mestery takes two steps back. :)
18:30:30 <anteaya> okay if that changes at any point, do speak up
18:30:32 <anteaya> :D
18:30:48 <anteaya> alright going back to the agenda for today's meeting
18:31:02 <anteaya> #topic Recognition of OpenStack Programs affected by Third Party testing
18:31:30 <anteaya> what openstack programs are represented that are affected by these discussions?
18:31:34 <anteaya> infra is
18:31:45 <jaypipes> nova, neutron, cinder, ironic
18:31:50 <jaypipes> at a minimum,
18:32:01 <anteaya> anyone here from nova?
18:32:30 <anteaya> so maybe next meeting we can get someone from nova
18:32:32 <jaypipes> anteaya: I can coordinate with folks from nova.
18:32:36 <anteaya> great
18:32:44 <anteaya> sahara has indicated they are
18:32:48 <anteaya> horizon as well
18:32:55 <krtaylor> yes, and tripleO
18:33:04 <anteaya> right, tripleO
18:33:05 <devananda> tripleo only in as much as ironic is.
18:33:12 <anteaya> oh okay
18:33:17 <jungleboyj> jaypipes: mriedem has been involved with 3rd party testing in IBM for nova.  He is a possible contact.
18:33:24 <devananda> i'm not aware that tripleo has any direct third-party testing aside from the component parts (ironic, neutron, etc)
18:33:29 <anteaya> let's see if we can corral someone from tripleO for the next one
18:33:29 <jaypipes> jungleboyj: coolio.
18:33:39 <krtaylor> jungleboyj, yes, and dansmith
18:33:52 <anteaya> devananda: okay, let's confirm that for next week
18:33:52 <jungleboyj> krtaylor: +1
18:34:19 <devananda> but it would be good to involve lifeless -- AIUI he does want third-party testing done via tripleo (but it's testing the integration of third-party components of ironic ,neutron, etc...)
18:34:24 <dansmith> what?
18:35:02 <anteaya> devananda: okay, great we might need a proxy though in case lifeless wants to get some sleep at some time in his life
18:35:13 <krtaylor> dansmith, we were discussing nova 3rd party - you had new views from summit on what to do to raise the bar
18:35:36 <dansmith> krtaylor: many folks did, but.. okay :)
18:35:41 <anteaya> we were just identifying which openstack programs are touched by third-party
18:35:58 <krtaylor> dansmith, maybe when that gets firmed up you can discuss in this meeting
18:36:30 <anteaya> so if we have exhausted that topic, let's move to the next
18:36:35 <anteaya> #topic Recognition of what process we currently have for Third Party testing
18:37:04 <anteaya> not everyone may be aware that this documentation exists
18:37:12 <anteaya> but we do have some: http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html
18:37:21 <anteaya> this is under the infra umbrella
18:37:22 <krtaylor> yes and requirements from nova, neutron
18:37:43 <anteaya> and we welcome patches to the file to keep the information relevant
18:38:05 <anteaya> also individual projects have requirements as krtaylor points out
18:38:27 <anteaya> do we think it would be good to gather links to these various wikipages in one place?
18:38:39 <jaypipes> ++
18:38:50 <devananda> ++
18:38:57 <anteaya> any thoughts on where that should live?
18:39:13 <devananda> I drafted requirements for ironic a while back and stashed them in our wiki. but consolidating in one place would be better
18:39:17 <jgriffith> anteaya: maybe one single parent wiki page?  Or something off of infra?
18:39:28 <anteaya> both good thoughts
18:39:53 <anteaya> let me talk to jeblair about what he would prefer regarding messaging from infra
18:40:04 <anteaya> and I can bring that back to next week's meeting
18:40:07 <anteaya> is that reasonable?
18:40:15 <krtaylor> I'd like to see a cross-project umbrella, but don't have a suggestion, except just do it in the infra page
18:40:19 <krtaylor> yes
18:40:23 <jgriffith> +1
18:40:27 <anteaya> messaging meaning where the parent page lives
18:40:47 <anteaya> great so we acknowledge we would like it to live someplace
18:40:59 <krtaylor> +1  the problem is having to find all the info spread all over the place
18:41:00 <anteaya> and we can gather ideas and discuss them for next week
18:41:09 <anteaya> krtaylor: it is a problem, yes
18:41:32 <krtaylor> well, at least an irritation  :)
18:41:36 <anteaya> Ironic has a link on the agenda to its wikipage
18:41:43 <anteaya> devananda: did you want to talk more about that?
18:41:54 <anteaya> krtaylor: yes, at least an irritation
18:41:59 <devananda> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ironic/Testing#Third_party_CI
18:42:21 <devananda> anteaya: not sure there's much more to say -- jsut that i'm happy to move that under a cross-project umbrella page, once there is one
18:42:24 <anteaya> oh yeah, I forgot the link before
18:42:38 <anteaya> #link http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html
18:42:49 <anteaya> devananda: great, thank you
18:42:59 <anteaya> clarkb: are you about?
18:43:15 <anteaya> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-infra-improving-3rd-party-testing
18:43:44 <anteaya> so during summit clarkb led a session on improving 3rd party testing in the infra track
18:43:53 <anteaya> that is the etherpad for the session
18:44:19 <anteaya> there are a lot of points on it, and it isn't summarized
18:44:34 <anteaya> I think for now it is sufficient to know it exists
18:44:54 <clarkb> o/
18:45:00 <anteaya> yay
18:45:13 <anteaya> feel like sharing some summit points with us?
18:45:33 <clarkb> basically I think we formalized some things around making sure third party testing is useful for developers
18:46:05 <clarkb> we will start requiring specific logging things like timestamps in utc, a localrc (or equivalent), and logs for all services
18:46:14 <mestery> clarkb: Like consistent logs and log formats for test runs? That's something we talked about in the Neutron testing session last week.
18:46:40 <clarkb> basically developers need a chance at understanding what broke otherwise the -1s will be ignored and the testing won't be useful
18:47:55 <clarkb> the other big thing was contact info
18:48:14 <clarkb> we are going to require a link to a wiki page with a description of what is being tested and who to contact and so on
18:48:33 <clarkb> we don't want thati nt he comments itself ebcause it can be quite verbose but having a place that is explicitly linked to will be helpful
18:48:40 <anteaya> as items get summarized and documented from that etherpad we will communicate them through our regular channels as well as this meeting
18:49:14 <anteaya> thanks clarkb, anything else?
18:50:04 <clarkb> thats it from me. the etherpad is available to anyone to read before this gets written up nicely
18:50:04 <anteaya> okay moving on
18:50:13 <anteaya> great, thank you
18:50:17 <anteaya> #topic Hearing from Third Party testing CI
18:50:24 <anteaya> is salv-orlando here?
18:50:38 <anteaya> the wiki status page is so pretty
18:50:43 <anteaya> I wanted you all to see it
18:50:53 <anteaya> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NovaVMware/Minesweeper/Status
18:51:11 <anteaya> and salv-orlando isn't here, so this section will be short
18:51:32 <anteaya> mostly I put this here to show where third-party folks will indeed have a place to talk
18:51:41 <anteaya> anything on the status page?
18:51:55 <anteaya> okay
18:52:01 <anteaya> #topic Open Discussion
18:52:05 <anteaya> go
18:52:27 <anteaya> anybody have anything?
18:52:38 <sc68cal> So I talked to a couple people at the summit, but since Comcast has a lab environment we'd like to createa CI system for ipv6 testing
18:52:55 <sc68cal> mostly focued on improving the scenario testing in Tempest for IPv6
18:53:19 <anteaya> yes, so testing ipv6 will include discussions with qa
18:53:39 <anteaya> we will need to put that on the agenda and insure some qa folks are here for that discussion
18:53:49 <anteaya> unless they would like to have the talk in the qa meeting
18:54:05 <anteaya> in which case please let us know when that is on the agenda so we can lurk and read logs
18:54:37 <sc68cal> ok, I will attend QA and bring propose that agenda item
18:54:42 <anteaya> great
18:54:52 <jerryz> is 3rd party CI for stackforge projects in the scope of this meeting?
18:54:54 <anteaya> let us know what space that discussion happens in
18:55:10 <anteaya> jerryz: it is open discussion time, sure
18:56:16 <jerryz> our tests are not in the gate pipeline, could it be possible that we add tests in gate pipeline?
18:56:36 <anteaya> jerryz: third party ci will not be in the gate pipeline for any project
18:56:40 <anteaya> openstack or stackforge
18:56:56 <anteaya> so the answer to your question is no
18:57:13 <anteaya> care to expand on your need so maybe we can find another way to help?
18:57:26 <jerryz> the formal way is to add templates in jjb?
18:57:36 <anteaya> the formal way of what?
18:57:48 <sc68cal> 8
18:57:50 <jerryz> expanding our tests in gate pipeline
18:58:04 <anteaya> your tests won't be in the gate pipeline
18:58:12 <akerr> jerryz: I think you would just get them added to tempest, no?
18:58:15 <anteaya> no third party tests are in the gate pipeline
18:59:23 <david-lyle> so much of this conversation has been around CI, from a Horizon standpoint I'm not sure 3rd party CI is sufficient.  What is the expectation around testing changes related to 3rd party drivers manually? Are there public test environments we can hit directly?  If so are these documented somewhere?
18:59:36 <anteaya> good questions
18:59:43 <anteaya> I don't have the answers for those
19:00:00 <krtaylor> would be a good topic for a future meeting
19:00:03 <anteaya> can you add those questions to next weeks agenda and perhaps we can look at them more closely?
19:00:15 <anteaya> yes
19:00:20 <anteaya> and we are at time
19:00:24 * david-lyle adding
19:00:30 <anteaya> thank you everyone for a great first meeting
19:00:38 <anteaya> I look forward to seeing you next week
19:00:42 <anteaya> #endmeeting