17:59:00 <SlickNik> #startmeeting trove
17:59:01 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jun  4 17:59:00 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SlickNik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:03 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:59:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'trove'
17:59:11 <iccha1> o/
17:59:18 <vgnbkr> o/
17:59:26 <kevinconway> o/
17:59:32 <kevinconway> jumping the gun there SlickNik ?
18:00:26 <SlickNik> just giving folks a couple of extra minutes to arrive. :)
18:00:29 <amrith> o/
18:00:36 <mattgriffin> o/
18:00:41 <kevinconway> i know we have a big agenda for today
18:01:11 <cweid> o/
18:01:22 <vipul> o/
18:01:30 <glucas> o/
18:01:31 <SlickNik> Yeah, agenda at:
18:01:32 <SlickNik> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TroveMeeting#Agenda_for_Jun_4
18:01:38 <dougshelley66> o/
18:02:10 <SlickNik> Previous meeting summary:
18:02:10 <SlickNik> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/trove/2014/trove.2014-05-28-18.00.html
18:02:17 <grapex> o/
18:02:20 <juice> o/
18:02:30 <juice> o_
18:02:38 <SlickNik> Okay let's get started.
18:02:44 <SlickNik> #topic Action Items
18:02:48 <juice> o_,
18:02:59 <SlickNik> just one here:
18:03:03 <cp16net> yup
18:03:04 <SlickNik> cp16net make etherpad for breaking up the modules for log auditing bug
18:03:11 <cp16net> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/trove/+bug/1324206
18:03:12 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1324206 in trove "audit logging levels" [Low,New]
18:03:15 <cp16net> couple links
18:03:27 <cp16net> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Juno-Trove-audit-logging-levels
18:03:43 <cp16net> so i wrote this up and dougshelley66 started on some of this
18:04:06 <dougshelley66> yes - schang, peterstac and I have signed up for some
18:04:06 <kevinconway> man that todo person has a lot of work!
18:04:54 <SlickNik> Sounds good. Thanks for signing up, dougshelley66, peterstac and changsimon
18:05:08 <dougshelley66> cp16net - we should make sure we are all on the same page w.r.t. the use of the i18n stuff
18:05:17 <cp16net> thanks for looking at this dougshelley66 and schang and peterstac
18:05:35 <SlickNik> I'm going to try and recruit aginghipster to look at some of this too. :)
18:05:55 <cp16net> nice
18:06:09 <hub_cap> that is the awesomest handle ever
18:06:44 <SlickNik> cp16net: Thanks for the follow up. Anything else to add?
18:06:55 <cp16net> dougshelley66: yeah we should make sure of that
18:07:15 <cp16net> SlickNik: i dont think so
18:07:24 <dougshelley66> cp16net: should we finalize that discussion here?
18:07:30 <dougshelley66> so everyone sees it?
18:07:41 <cp16net> dougshelley66: that might not be a bad idea
18:08:07 <dougshelley66> cp16net: go for it
18:08:09 <cp16net> what is the differences you are seeing?
18:08:15 <SlickNik> #Topic i18n discussion
18:08:33 <dougshelley66> so the logging standards doc talks about the use of _LE(), _LI() etc
18:08:47 <dougshelley66> but i don't think we believe these are "baked" yet
18:08:50 <cp16net> OH...
18:08:52 <cp16net> right
18:09:14 <kevinconway> where are these topics coming from?
18:09:21 <cp16net> so the log translation page was talking about using _LI() _LW _LE _LC
18:09:41 <iccha1> kevinconway: follow up from the follow up of action items from prev meeting
18:09:50 <cp16net> i could not determine yesterday what benifit they have for the translation
18:10:00 <cp16net> kevinconway: they are coming from the common incubator
18:10:12 <cp16net> gettext changes
18:10:25 <cp16net> #link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo-incubator/tree/openstack/common/gettextutils.py#n133
18:10:48 <cp16net> i saw that denis_makogon added a review to pull in these updates
18:10:49 <amrith> denis_makogon has this change set https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97472/
18:11:07 <cp16net> which is fine but i dont think its nesseary to make these changes globally
18:11:25 <cp16net> if it comes to be an issue later we can go back and change it
18:11:42 <cp16net> but i dont think there is a precedent set yet for this
18:12:05 <cp16net> i'd just rather not mandate something thats not really used any where
18:12:32 <dougshelley66> right so the proposal is to continue using _()
18:12:36 <cp16net> yes
18:12:45 <SlickNik> cp16net: that sounds good to me.
18:12:47 <cp16net> any concerns about that decision
18:12:49 <amrith> I have a question related to this ...
18:13:14 <amrith> in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/77551/ (for example) I requested denis_makogon make some changes to localize strings which didn't use _()
18:13:22 <amrith> I had suggested he use _LE() ... etc.,
18:13:34 <amrith> I'm assuming that reviewers are still to identify strings which aren't localized
18:13:40 <amrith> and suggest using _()
18:13:43 <amrith> is that correct?
18:14:01 <amrith> or do we expect this independent project to go find all strings and periodically _()'ize them?
18:14:07 <amrith> <end-of-question>
18:14:36 <dougshelley66> amrith: i believe we are saying that it is too soon to switch to those _LE etc notations
18:14:40 <cp16net> amrith: there is a script that creates the po files for locaization
18:14:56 <dougshelley66> and more specifically, that anyone working on the logging audit shouldn't do that
18:15:22 <SlickNik> amrith: So reviewers should still look out for string that are localizable and point them out if they're not using _()
18:15:46 <SlickNik> amrith: I believe we're saying that we're not mandating to use _LE() though.
18:15:58 <amrith> ok, thanks SlickNik
18:16:05 <dougshelley66> SlickNik: what is the short term review verdict if someone uses _LE() etc?
18:16:09 <amrith> (and dougshelley66 and cp16net )
18:16:58 <SlickNik> I think the short term verdict is that they would need to wait until the oslo gettextutils  sync merges.
18:17:26 <dougshelley66> ok so after that gets merged is it ok for people to start using those new notations?
18:17:32 <cp16net> yeah it would break otherwise
18:17:45 <dougshelley66> cp16net: ?
18:18:53 <SlickNik> I think so. We probably have to verify (as part of the merge, perhaps) that the new way is working.
18:19:00 <cp16net> i think it would be fine but its not something we should -1 about
18:19:09 <dougshelley66> ok thx
18:19:15 <SlickNik> sounds good.
18:19:41 <SlickNik> Thanks guys. Let's move on.
18:19:46 <cp16net> ok we beat this one down
18:19:48 <SlickNik> #Topic Juno-1 release to be cut next week
18:20:00 <cp16net> seems so soon
18:20:07 <SlickNik> So we're gonna be tagging the Juno-1 milestone next week.
18:20:12 <dougshelley66> yeah, my hangover is just wearing off
18:20:14 <hub_cap> aww yea
18:20:34 <iccha1> SlickNik: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/trove/+spec/list-datastore-type-and-versions needs to be tagged
18:20:36 <cp16net> lol
18:20:54 <SlickNik> So can you guys go through your bugs and bp and make sure things are tagged correctly.
18:21:24 <SlickNik> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/trove/+milestone/juno-1
18:21:28 <vipul> ok
18:21:36 <SlickNik> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-troveclient/+milestone/juno-1
18:21:44 <SlickNik> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/trove-integration/+milestone/juno-1
18:21:54 <cp16net> oh boy
18:21:56 <SlickNik> If there's something that should be there and isn't showing up, let me know.
18:22:26 <cp16net> or if you cant change the bug/bp let us know
18:22:38 <SlickNik> Beginning next week, I'm going to be bulk moving a lot of the items that are not going to be completed in Juno-1 to Juno-2
18:22:46 <cp16net> i should say let SlickNik know ;-P
18:22:58 <SlickNik> Yes, send me a note on IRC :)
18:23:46 <cp16net> SlickNik: when you "next week" is there a day its going to happen?
18:24:03 <SlickNik> cp16net: different projects are doing it on different days.
18:24:09 <cp16net> ok
18:24:19 <SlickNik> cp16net: sometime between Tuesday and Thursday.
18:24:25 <cp16net> gotcha
18:24:45 <SlickNik> I was planing on getting it done early on Tuesday.
18:24:55 <cp16net> ok
18:25:04 <iccha1> thanks for the heads up
18:25:22 <SlickNik> Okay, that's all I had on this.
18:25:38 <SlickNik> #topic Open Discussion
18:26:30 <SlickNik> Anything else?
18:26:38 <amrith> yes, a quick question
18:26:47 <amrith> could someone share a link for this new workflow thing?
18:27:07 <amrith> in review's
18:27:20 <amrith> I've seen some people set it but I'm not sure what it means
18:27:39 <cp16net> amrith: the -1 on workflow?
18:27:46 <amrith> cp16net ... yes
18:27:51 <amrith> and it's twin, the +1
18:28:10 <cp16net> right its used for "work in progress"
18:28:15 <SlickNik> amrith: Workflow −1 = Work in Progress, 0 = Ready for review, +1=Approved
18:28:29 <cp16net> there ya go thanks SlickNik
18:28:37 <amrith> so, if a developer submits a patch set and after review he/she sets it to -1
18:28:43 <amrith> does it mean not yet ready for review?
18:29:01 <cp16net> right the developer has the control of that
18:29:07 <iccha1> yeah it means you are still working on it
18:29:08 <SlickNik> amrith: yes, that means they're aware they still need to make changes to the review, and are working on it.
18:29:15 <amrith> OK, thanks
18:29:15 <iccha1> useful if u want to show early work on a patch
18:29:27 <iccha1> even though its not ready yet
18:29:32 <cp16net> or make a patch show its age
18:29:34 <cp16net> :-P
18:29:39 <amrith> ok, cool
18:29:54 <amrith> I guess one can safely update the search filter to include workflow != -1 ;)
18:30:35 <amrith> thanks
18:30:37 <amrith> nothing more from me
18:30:51 <SlickNik> Np, thank you!
18:30:55 <SlickNik> Anything else?
18:31:17 <SlickNik> *crickets*
18:31:19 <SlickNik> #endmeeting