15:00:56 <krtaylor> #startmeeting third-party
15:00:56 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May 27 15:00:56 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is krtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:57 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:01:01 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'third_party'
15:01:19 <krtaylor> who's here for third party CI working group meeting?
15:01:24 <patrickeast> o/
15:01:28 <mmedvede> o/
15:01:31 <ctlaugh_> o/
15:02:26 <zz_zz_ja> o/
15:02:56 <krtaylor> welcome everyone
15:03:13 <krtaylor> it was really good getting to meet some of you in Vancouver
15:03:31 <krtaylor> ok, here's the agenda for today
15:03:38 <krtaylor> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty#5.2F27.2F15_1500_UTC
15:04:17 <krtaylor> #topic Annoucements
15:04:59 <krtaylor> there was an email thread for setting deadlines for cinder volume drivers
15:05:14 <krtaylor> I believe that date was June 19th
15:05:26 <patrickeast> 19th to be merged, 12th to have ci up and passing
15:05:27 <krtaylor> patrickeast, asselin_  can you confirm?
15:05:27 <asselin_> hi...i'm double-booked...so my response here may be slow
15:05:41 <krtaylor> asselin_ np
15:06:14 <asselin_> yes, what patrickeast said K1 merge, K1 - 1 week for CI up and running. Should map to those dates.
15:06:26 <krtaylor> ok, so hopefully those dates get out to everyone, spread the word
15:07:21 <krtaylor> ok, any other quick announcements ?
15:08:03 <krtaylor> #topic Vancouver BoF session
15:08:35 <krtaylor> we had a good, although small session, intermixed with the BoF
15:09:06 <krtaylor> it was good to meet everyone, and I had a bunch of follow up conversations after
15:09:46 <krtaylor> it was a good review of the Xen testing and a brief discussion on what we have coming up to work on for CI systems
15:10:12 <krtaylor> after the turn out in Paris, I was expecting more
15:10:26 <krtaylor> but that was probably due to several factors
15:10:33 <asselin_> who is new hear today b/c of BoF session?
15:10:38 <krtaylor> one being that it was in the other building
15:10:59 <krtaylor> anyone?
15:11:49 <krtaylor> it was interesting to see that most attending the BoF did not know about these meetings, either the office hours meeting or the working group
15:12:20 <krtaylor> so, I think there is an action there for all of us, to spread the word about this resource
15:13:26 <krtaylor> thats actually a good bridge to the next topic, these meetings
15:13:44 <krtaylor> any questions about the BoF?
15:14:13 <krtaylor> #topic Meeting Frequency
15:15:06 <krtaylor> I wanted to bring up for discussion, then possible email thread, the number of meetings we are having
15:15:36 <krtaylor> the 0400UTC meetings are generally not attended well
15:16:08 <krtaylor> and this one now has a large overlap in status with the office hours meetings
15:16:24 <krtaylor> how does everyone feel about these meetings?
15:16:42 <krtaylor> do we need to reduce the frequency, or just advertise better?
15:17:52 <krtaylor> I have been trying for many months now to get other systems to participate and share their "secrets" on how they are doing testing
15:17:58 <ctlaugh_> I only attend this one, not the 0400UTC, but like having it -- the different focus from the office hours meting
15:18:17 <krtaylor> ok, good, thanks ctlaugh_
15:18:46 <zz_zz_ja> when you say office hrs, you're talking about the infra mtg on iirc monday late utc?
15:19:23 <krtaylor> yes Mondays 1500UTC
15:20:15 <patrickeast> i’m ok with the times, but i do think we could probably reduce the frequency, it seems like the 0400 meetings are usually unproductive due to how many people show up
15:20:59 <mmedvede> I normally only show up for this one as well
15:21:07 <zz_zz_ja> ...searching our ThirdParty mtg page, for example, there is no mention of office hrs.  I'm not sure if "their" mtg page exists, or pts to us if the page does exist.  If they're related, how does someone not already embedded figure out where to spend their time most productively?
15:21:54 <ctlaugh_> If there was only 1 meeting, I would probably make arrangements to attend even if it was late (unless it ended up in the middle of the night).  This time is just much more convenient.
15:22:06 <zz_zz_ja> If we're trying to attract new people, the content of the advertising matters (why attend this mtg?).
15:22:31 <krtaylor> zz_zz_ja, good feedback, I wrote meeting descriptions, but they were quickly changed
15:23:28 <krtaylor> I guess what I am thinking was that initially, there was a storm of people needing to ask questions about getting started (Office Hours)
15:23:38 <krtaylor> that has calmed down
15:24:00 <krtaylor> not sure if we will get another wave as other projects require CI
15:24:34 <krtaylor> anyway, it was useful to split the meetings, I was just poking at whether it was still useful, and the frequency
15:24:47 <asselin_> manila is starting
15:24:51 <zz_zz_ja> the operative variable is probably organization at least as much as project.
15:26:58 <krtaylor> let's take this to an email thread, see if we can come to a consensus
15:27:07 <asselin_> +1
15:27:51 <krtaylor> also, I'd really like to get some help chairing the meetings, but I'll add that to the email
15:28:19 <krtaylor> onward then
15:28:32 <krtaylor> #topic Monitoring dashboard
15:28:53 <krtaylor> so the spec is basically done, but not getting a +2
15:29:11 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135170/
15:29:21 <asselin_> I pinged infra once...but perhaps the timing was bad
15:29:30 <krtaylor> sweston, you around?
15:30:21 <krtaylor> asselin_, yeah, I am hoping that's the issue, but I'll add it to the agenda for next week if we don't get merged soon
15:30:46 <krtaylor> I don't think there are any open concerns
15:31:02 <krtaylor> at least none that I know of or that have been in comments
15:32:06 <krtaylor> we did have some hall discussions at summit on whether to stay with the radar code or to enhance another one, such as patrickeast 's
15:32:34 <krtaylor> sweston seems to be very busy with his day job atm
15:33:14 <krtaylor> any questions about CI monitoring or the dashboard?
15:33:38 <ctlaugh_> My only other question was whether it would just monitor gerrit, or if it would also (at some point) be able to report CI status of non-gerrit-based CIs
15:34:25 <ctlaugh_> periodic vs commit-based
15:34:28 <krtaylor> non-gerrit, meaning not reporting back, or?
15:34:33 <krtaylor> ah, ok
15:35:02 <ctlaugh_> and yes, not reporting back to gerrit
15:35:42 <krtaylor> good point, but I think it would have to be gerrit to start, all systems probably have one project they are reporting back against
15:36:37 <krtaylor> maybe when the periodic dashboard is done we can figure out how to mine that, but nothing comes to mind
15:37:32 <ctlaugh_> I'm going to look back at setting up a CI using the puppet modules to test off of gerrit, but we will also be running just nightly jobs as well.  One set of our testing (multiple boards, various OS distros) will never be stable enough to hook into gerrit without irritating everyone :)
15:38:32 <krtaylor> here is the link to that periodic dashboard summit session etherpad
15:38:37 <krtaylor> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-QA-testing-beyond-the-gate
15:38:41 <ctlaugh_> thank you
15:39:49 <krtaylor> sdague said that if we wanted to, we could look at accelerating the third party reporting, but that was v2 discussion for them
15:40:06 <krtaylor> but he welcomed the idea of us doing that work
15:41:02 <krtaylor> which reminds me, I was going to talk to mrodden about that
15:41:42 <krtaylor> any other comments? questions?
15:42:04 <krtaylor> next then
15:42:28 <krtaylor> #topic Common CI
15:42:56 <krtaylor> asselin_ can you give us a brief summary of the working sessions at summit?
15:43:12 <asselin_> yes, we had a nice working session during the summit
15:43:28 <asselin_> we broke out into many small groups working on the various parts
15:43:56 <asselin_> some of the -infra cores focused on the testing effort and made quite a bit of progress
15:44:22 <asselin_> we had some new people contribute, juame devessa
15:45:03 <asselin_> so still a lot of work to do, and now we've got more people on board, so that's helpful
15:45:03 <krtaylor> it was great to see all the merges
15:45:28 <asselin_> yes
15:45:41 <asselin_> sorry...need to step away for a few minutes.....
15:46:23 <krtaylor> sure np, patrickeast, ctlaugh_ were you able to attend these working sessions?
15:46:41 <ctlaugh_> no, I was not
15:46:42 <krtaylor> I had schedule conflicts :(
15:46:55 <patrickeast> same, there were cinder meetings i needed to attend at the same time
15:47:41 <krtaylor> yeah, my entire week was a schedule conflict with one thing or another
15:48:05 <krtaylor> I'm sure it was optimized for someone ;)
15:48:56 <krtaylor> ok, well here is the link for the common CI effort
15:49:00 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:downstream-puppet,n,z
15:49:30 <krtaylor> help how you can, sign up for a chunk, or at least review the patches
15:50:48 <krtaylor> #topic Open Discussion
15:51:06 <krtaylor> I'll open it up, anything to discuss?
15:51:28 <krtaylor> impressions, surprises from summit?
15:52:05 <patrickeast> oh i had one thing to bring up
15:52:12 <krtaylor> it was good to see the 2016 summit locations announced
15:52:17 <krtaylor> patrickeast, sure
15:52:43 <patrickeast> for the tools repo, are we planning to just dump stuff in there or is it more restrictive?
15:53:15 <patrickeast> i ask because i’ve had reviews up for a couple weeks now, should we just ninja +2/A them in? or wait for more people to see them?
15:53:31 <krtaylor> patrickeast, ah, good question
15:53:56 <krtaylor> yes, I have been meaning to address those, I'd like to get other eyes on them
15:54:11 <krtaylor> summit timing I'm betting
15:55:11 <krtaylor> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/stackforge/third-party-ci-tools,n,z
15:55:28 <krtaylor> all, please review
15:55:58 <krtaylor> but, as initial patches, I think we'd be ok with pushing them as is
15:56:21 <krtaylor> we don't have tests for the repo, so no gate testing, ect
15:56:33 <mmedvede> I did review and +1 the ones I understand. I think there is no harm approving
15:56:42 <krtaylor> agreed
15:56:46 <patrickeast> i guess one thing to consider is if we want more like a dumping ground spot and then a more thorough review process to put things into more of a production ready state
15:57:30 <patrickeast> i think we’ve talked about that before, but i forget what the decision was
15:57:51 <krtaylor> patrickeast, good point, I guess I was thinking that if the tools grew and took on a life, they would be promoted to their own project and that would include testing, etc
15:58:08 <patrickeast> yea that makes sense
15:58:25 <krtaylor> the could then be promoted again if they made it to infra usefulness
15:58:56 <mmedvede> I think less initial friction is good
15:59:00 <patrickeast> so then the bar should be pretty low for adding stuff to the tools repo, it might be worth us putting together some criteria
15:59:25 <patrickeast> mmedvede: +1
15:59:27 <mmedvede> +2 everything! :)
15:59:30 <patrickeast> lol
15:59:40 <krtaylor> hehheh, well...
15:59:46 <krtaylor> ok, out of time
15:59:53 <krtaylor> thanks everyone!
16:00:04 <mmedvede> agree on criteria though, too much freedom would make it harder down the line...
16:00:21 <krtaylor> #endmeeting