18:01:41 #startmeeting trove 18:01:43 Meeting started Wed Oct 22 18:01:41 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SlickNik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:01:44 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:01:46 The meeting name has been set to 'trove' 18:02:15 o/ 18:02:16 o/ 18:02:18 Agenda at: 18:02:19 o/ 18:02:20 o/ 18:02:21 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TroveMeeting 18:02:27 teamo/ 18:02:29 o/ 18:02:30 ./ 18:02:33 o/ 18:02:41 o/ 18:02:43 o/ 18:02:45 o/ 18:02:57 o/ 18:03:24 #Topic Trove design summit sessions 18:03:39 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-trove-summit-topics 18:03:56 o/ 18:04:28 So we need to finalize on the list of sessions for the design summit by end of this week. 18:04:44 It looks like we'll have 4 session slots, and a half day of meetup time 18:05:14 I've taken a first stab at proposing some sessions at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-trove-summit-topics 18:06:05 If there's something that you'd really like to see in a session, definitely propose it! :) 18:06:43 Also if there are sessions that you're interested in, either participating or leading, please go ahead and put your name in the appropriate list. 18:07:39 Looks like most of you have already started doing this — awesome. :) 18:07:59 thanks SlickNik 18:08:21 o/ 18:08:45 o/ 18:09:48 We have some time until Friday to do this — after that, I'll have to collect the results so that they can be published to the design summit schedule in time. 18:10:28 SlickNik, are there any priorities for Kilo? 18:10:55 and how topics would be picked from given list? 18:12:47 My top priorities for kilo are 18:12:48 1. Continuing the replication, and clustering work that we've started on in Juno, and 18:12:48 2. Focusing on testing and quality. 18:13:18 Apart from that, I'll be looking at interest levels, and what most folks are keen to discuss, and talk about. 18:15:46 Okay, I'll let folks update that etherpad out of band. 18:16:16 I'll send out a reminder email again tomorrow, and will look at collecting the results by the end of this week. 18:16:42 Let's move on to the next topic, in the interest of time. 18:17:21 (Please let me know if you have any questions!) 18:17:51 #Topic Bug Importance 18:18:01 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Bugs#Importance 18:18:38 just a quick comment on this: if folks wouldn't mind taking a look at their bugs, looking at the importance chart, and making changes where necessary, that'd be great. 18:19:22 at the moment it's a bit difficult to find actual bugs in behavior vs. minor enhancements, etc. 18:20:07 i have concrete proposal, i'd to make trove-bugs group closed on launchpad and allow only cores and PTL to review bugs (once per week if it's possible) 18:20:27 i'd suggest =) 18:21:05 who assigns the bug importance - is it the person who opens the bug or the cores? 18:21:29 cores i think 18:21:35 johnma, a person who's in trove-bugs group 18:21:45 johnma: There's a "trove-bugs" group in LaunchPad whose members can change the importance. 18:22:01 ok , great. thanks 18:22:02 And currently any trove-dev can be part of that group 18:22:36 #link https://launchpad.net/~trove-bugs 18:22:51 denis_makogon: I'm afraid that with the amount of review load, and other items that cores are trying to tackle, making yet another thing "core only" would cause more slowdowns. 18:23:08 Looking at other projects, review of bugs is an open responsibility 18:23:12 as it is in trove right now. 18:23:14 SlickNik, agreed, it was just a proposal 18:23:37 i.e. there aren't 114 core team members for Nova. 18:23:43 +1 18:23:58 There was some discussion around having a bug czar on the mailing list earlier — perhaps what we need is someone who can drive triaging and making sure bugs are aptly marked (importance, milestone, etc). 18:24:21 but we still need to find out suitable way to review bugs (thanks for amcrn for rising this question) 18:24:39 czar may work, at least we can try it out 18:24:42 If there is an issue, the trove-bugs could be a PTL appointment for non-cores, but has there been an issue that is raising the question? 18:25:32 SlickNik: i can take a stab at a one time clean up for now,. 18:25:49 amcrn, if you'd like I'll split with you (and others who volunteer) 18:26:01 amrith: sure 18:26:04 thanks 18:26:17 amcrn, maybe we can stick around after the meeting and divvy up the work 18:26:19 if you wouldn't mind i would liket to help too 18:26:34 amcrn / amrith: thanks! 18:26:38 vgnbkr, I don't believe there's a specific issue now 18:26:42 except that there's a lot of bugs 18:26:49 and it hasn't been a priority to sanitize LP 18:26:56 after all, stackalytics doesn't track that ;) 18:27:01 maybe you guys can come up with a recommendation for an ongoing plan as well. 18:27:19 That would be so sweet! :) 18:27:34 SlickNik: now you're asking too much ;) 18:27:38 vgnbkr, I think the issue now is just that we need to clean up the bug lists ... so that when we're trying to prioritize bugs, it is less of a workload 18:27:50 lol, I knew I could count on you amcrn. 18:27:57 Some projects - like infra and docs - do regular bug days. 18:28:01 Maybe something for trove? 18:28:12 AJaeger_, good point 18:28:24 amrith: Sure, I was referring to the recommendation to close the list. I thought there might be an issue I hadn't heard of. 18:28:27 A whole day where everybody goes through the open bugs to make the list as small as possible. 18:28:30 we can do the same, bug-day is perfect thing for us =) 18:28:40 Fixing obvious bugs but also categorizing them and discussing how to move forward 18:29:01 +1 to bug-day 18:29:02 vgnbkr, I don't believe there is a strong reason (that I know of or would support at this time) to close the list 18:29:24 AJaeger_: let's brew on that and hash out some ideas next week. i think it'd be a great idea. 18:29:51 before you do it, check http://status.openstack.org/bugday/ 18:29:52 +1 18:30:00 * amrith volunteers amcrn 18:30:08 AJaeger_: I like the idea 18:30:15 2nd amcrn 18:30:17 and get trove added to the link so that you can monitor your progress ;) 18:30:18 :_p 18:30:32 AJaeger_: accountability? pfft. 18:30:36 AJaeger_: nice! 18:30:36 and it could be done at a regular cadence 18:30:37 ;) 18:30:46 so if u cant make it to this one, make it to the next one 18:33:01 Okay, all good ideas. 18:33:37 #action amcrn, amrith to initially clean up bug list 18:33:46 ok 18:34:01 #action SlickNik to look into getting bugday going with a regular cadence 18:34:34 Let's move on. 18:35:05 #topic Enable H301 18:35:22 #define H301 18:35:42 cp16net, import only module 18:35:43 cp16net this is one of the hacking rules which is currently disabled 18:35:58 cp16net: no preprocessor directives in python, please :) 18:36:00 "H301: Do not import more than one module per line (*)" 18:36:13 but with disable H301, we also disable a few others like 304 and 306 18:36:22 "[H304] Do not make relative imports" 18:36:25 that kinda sucks for the tests tho 18:36:30 AJaeger_ / amrith: feel free to jump in and explain. 18:36:31 "H305 H306 H307] Organize your imports according to the Import order template and Real-world Import Order Examples below." 18:36:36 what's wrong with preprocessor directives? 18:36:56 kevinconway: absolutely nothing 18:36:57 http://docs.openstack.org/developer/hacking/ 18:37:02 if that is still relevant 18:37:04 SlickNik: amrith invited me since I send a patch that fixes H301 18:37:16 maybe some context would be good. AJaeger started working on a fix and I wanted to ensure that he didn't waste a bunch of time 18:37:17 and the question was how to continue with it 18:37:23 only to be told, thanks but no thanks. 18:37:28 I guess my take is that imports do not effect the quality of our software 18:37:35 so I vote no 18:37:36 I'd like us to speak with him about what it is that he is going to implement 18:37:45 and make sure that he and the review team are in sync 18:37:47 robertmyers: ++ 18:37:50 before he spends time. 18:37:57 This is one of the global OpenStack hacking rules and hacking is defined as "general accepted best practices" 18:38:06 Still a project is fine to ignore it. 18:38:22 So we can follow it in practice but not gate on it 18:38:36 robertmyers: that does not make sense. 18:38:41 I hate ridge rules 18:38:45 Fix all issues and then enable it 18:38:50 no 18:38:52 or leave it 18:39:04 leave it 18:39:26 don't fix the issues 18:39:34 If there's an agreement of leaving it, I will send a patch to document this. 18:39:39 just use it as a guideline 18:39:51 honestly I am fine either ways 18:40:09 Most projects document which violations are disabled on purpose - and which ones are disabled because nobody cleaned up yet. 18:40:19 Right now trove does not say either of it. 18:40:27 as a general rule we should follow this, but don't change a bunch of code to fix a non-bug 18:40:33 which meant to me: You ignore since you never cleaned up ;) 18:40:40 yes 18:40:41 i dont think it matters beyond aesthetics of the code 18:40:53 which is on par with what robertmyers is saying 18:40:54 +1 18:41:30 cp16net: I agree, this is more a style issue and not to prevent any bugs - like other hacking checks 18:41:33 +1 to leave as-is 18:42:00 Same here, I'm trying to read to figure out if there are other implications of leaving this disabled. 18:42:03 AJaeger_: I think it makes sense to clean this up, but I honestly feel like there have been so many commits over the last two years that were just changing order of imports and stuff like that. I think there may be some collective exhaustion in some of the long-time Trovers about it. 18:42:08 only time i've seen an issue with multiple imports is conflicting names but thats a runtime error 18:42:17 maybe unused ones 18:42:21 but thats a pip error 18:42:49 grapex_: read my mind, and i'm not even an old-timer. 18:42:50 i dont care for the importing * but some cases its alright 18:43:00 just to test the waters, may I have a quick show of hands. How many people want to move forward with enabling new rules as proposed in hacking and how many would like to remain as is. 18:43:07 grapex_: once the cleanup is in, it might be easier since you have a defined order on the imports 18:43:22 #vote? 18:43:32 sure, just want to see how wide the moat is 18:43:36 So AJaeger_, what I'm hearing is that we'd be amenable to a patchset that explicitly states that we have this check disabled in Trove. 18:43:36 or how broad the split is 18:43:40 lets vote 18:43:40 note that I'm volunteering myself to enable some of these after fixing them - but still need friendly reviewers. 18:43:41 cp16net: sure 18:44:13 SlickNik: Yes, that's my feeling as well - and I will send such a patch similar to what other projects do. 18:44:26 unless there's another vote ;) 18:44:27 AJaeger_, I'm volunteering to help with the review as well. 18:44:36 #vote Enable H301? Yes, No, Indifferent 18:44:41 * cp16net waits for SlickNik to find the docs for voting... 18:44:42 #vote yes 18:44:42 :-P 18:44:42 enabling 301 is gonna be huge task and big review 18:44:54 clearly I don't remember the syntax for #vote 18:44:56 SushilKM_: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129624/ 18:44:57 hrm, is the bot broken? 18:45:01 SushilKM_: done ;) 18:45:03 startvote? 18:45:09 I want to vote indifferent, but feel like if I see a bunch of people voting yes I'll want to vote no. :p 18:45:12 #startvote Enable H301? Yes, No, Indifferent 18:45:12 Begin voting on: Enable H301? Valid vote options are Yes, No, Indifferent. 18:45:13 Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 18:45:24 #vote Yes 18:45:29 #vote No 18:45:30 #vote No 18:45:35 #vote Indifferent 18:45:35 #vote No 18:45:35 #vote Yes 18:45:36 #vote No 18:45:39 #vote no 18:45:41 #vote No 18:45:41 #vote No 18:45:43 #vote No 18:45:54 #vote no 18:46:12 I demand a recount 18:46:20 LOL 18:46:25 #vote Yes 18:46:25 hanging chad? 18:46:35 Anyone else? 18:46:46 Yes 18:46:46 #endvote 18:46:46 Voted on "Enable H301?" Results are 18:46:47 Yes (3): AJaeger_, SushilKM_, SlickNik 18:46:48 Indifferent (1): iccha1 18:46:49 No (9): schang, tomblank, robertmyers, amrith, vgnbkr, amcrn, cp16net, grapex_, dougshelley66 18:47:14 SlickNik: You will have those Trove t-shirts that say "The Bad Boys of OpenStack" ready at the summit, right? 18:47:22 lol 18:47:23 LOL 18:47:33 grapex_: heh 18:47:39 there's an idea :) 18:47:39 lol 18:47:40 Tell me when you all wear it, I want a photo ;) 18:47:43 What me Hacking? 18:47:48 i could always use a new tshirt 18:47:50 amrith: lol! 18:47:53 with an Al Newmann cartoon on the front 18:48:11 Okay, I think we have a way forward, and it's as I suspected. 18:48:11 ok, will abandon my patch and send a documentation patch for tox.ini 18:48:21 Thanks AJaeger_! 18:48:37 #Topic Open Discussion 18:48:39 Thanks for discussing it openly here - better a NO now than kicking you over the next half year ;) 18:49:01 AJaeger_, thanks much 18:49:42 There is one more agenda item, I added it this morning. Do we have time for it today? 18:49:58 Oh, I missed it. Let me refresh 18:50:02 Sure, we have some time. 18:50:10 It's about the guestagent refactoring. 18:51:07 schang: You bring up a good topic. 18:51:14 To touch on the gate issue. 18:51:50 So finally the environment that rdjenkins runs on was decommissioned. 18:52:04 Which has been causing the "quota issues" in the gate. 18:52:28 Still working on a way forward to gate against the integration tests. 18:53:26 Will keep all of you updated on the gate. 18:53:44 But hope to have a solution in place fairly soon (hopefully by the end of the week). 18:53:55 thanks SlickNik 18:54:08 Thanks SlickNik 18:54:12 So robertmyers, what should be the next step for the guestagent refactoring? 18:54:16 SlickNik: Thanks for all your work on this. It's greatly appreciated. 18:54:50 schang: After it is merged, then we need to cut ties with trove 18:54:51 Other than the gate -1, it pretty much passed the tests. 18:55:46 robertmyers: Did you say there could be some pending commits for the guestagent? 18:56:01 ... that we should merge before cutting the ties? 18:56:15 no 18:56:40 schang: basically we want everything to merge that is a higher priority 18:56:54 then this refactor 18:57:09 to cut down on rebases all aroung 18:57:12 around 18:57:28 robertmyers, what we discussed last week 18:57:36 amrith yes 18:57:40 would give you a clear time to chkin 18:57:46 without other merges coming along 18:57:49 and muddying the water 18:57:52 yes 18:57:58 that's still the plan, I think. 18:58:11 so we are just pingin the world to say we are ready 18:58:14 except that someone (me) has been wreaking havoc in the builds. 18:58:43 And for me ... I'll leave this review the way it is, letting it to collect more feedback. 18:58:54 robertmyers: yup, once the gate is back up, and the tests pass — let's look into triaging the reviews, and merging this if there's nothing else that more important. 18:58:55 robertmyers schang: looking forward to the new world, thanks for the great work. 18:59:03 that's* 18:59:26 robertmyers: yes, thanks for this! It's been coming a while. 18:59:30 SlickNik: cool thanks! 18:59:45 thank schang 18:59:57 he did it all, I'm just a supervisor 19:00:01 thanks robertmyers 19:00:23 Thanks schang! 19:00:24 robertmyers: You're the associate producer 19:00:28 thanks schang and robertmyers 19:00:43 Okay, that's time. 19:00:51 thanks SlickNik and amrith 19:00:52 Thanks all! 19:00:56 thanks SlickNik 19:00:57 #endmeeting