Jump to: navigation, search


< Meetings‎ | Horizon
Revision as of 12:53, 17 February 2016 by Rob Cresswell (talk | contribs) (Created page with "12:02:43 < doug-fish> looks right to me 12:02:51 < robcresswell> Hmm. 12:03:11 < robcresswell> Doesn't seem to like me trying to start the meeting. 12:03:20 < doug-fish> "Once...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

12:02:43 < doug-fish> looks right to me 12:02:51 < robcresswell> Hmm. 12:03:11 < robcresswell> Doesn't seem to like me trying to start the meeting. 12:03:20 < doug-fish> "Once the #startmeeting command has been issued, the bot should start the meeting. If the bot doesn't respond to this command, ask for assistance in #openstack-infra. " 12:03:23 < doug-fish> that's from the wiki! 12:03:27 < doug-fish> seems relevant 12:03:38 < r1chardj0n3s> freenode has had issues, might have affected bot 12:03:55 < piet> #startmeeting horizon 12:04:12 < robcresswell> Yeah, the bot isnt in channel. 12:04:40 < robcresswell> Right, lets continue anyway. 12:05:10 < robcresswell> Only notice is a reminder about deadlines 12:05:25 < robcresswell> 2 weeks today 12:06:00 < robcresswell> Until M-3 releases. We need to make sure bps are complete and ready for review. Start pestering cores if you need to. 12:06:22 < itxaka> yay, pestering cores \o/ 12:06:32 < robcresswell> Any other notices before we move on to the agenda? 12:06:43 < betherly> yay IRC has let me into the meeting! 12:07:32 < robcresswell> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Horizon#Agenda_for_2016-02-17_12_UTC 12:08:00 < robcresswell> #topic d_o_a stable releases for kilo/liberty 12:08:10 < robcresswell> Urgh none of this is going to work is it. 12:08:20 < doug-fish> :-) 12:08:26 < robcresswell> mrunge: You're up :) 12:08:44 < mrunge> uhm, on a call currently 12:08:59 < mrunge> itxaka 12:09:00 < mrunge> ? 12:09:02 < itxaka> yeah 12:09:28 < robcresswell> itxaka, can you speak about the agenda items? 12:09:31 < itxaka> basically regarding the patches linked in the agenda, tsufiev showed concern on the release timing for them 12:09:46 < itxaka> and its a concern that we should all share 12:10:03 < tsufiev> itxaka, me? 12:10:06 < itxaka> doa should make a stable release for kilo and liberty 12:10:40 < tsufiev> itxaka, ah, got it 12:10:44 < tsufiev> yes, I did :) 12:10:45 < itxaka> and then a horizon liberty/kilo release should also follow with a new constraint on doa version to avoid any issues 12:12:50 < itxaka> basically a horizon patch needs a specific new doa version with some backports already merged or it will introduce a known bug 12:13:20 < robcresswell> Sounds reasonable 12:13:35 < mrunge> this reads to me like: release a now doa version for kilo, then increase global requirements and then finally patch horizon 12:13:36 < itxaka> so Im guessing release new doa version for kilo/liberty -> bump the requirements for doa in horizon kilo/liberty -> release new horizon version for kilo/liberty 12:14:42 < itxaka> I dont have it very clear how the release process works and so on, so thats the main concern for me 12:14:43 < mrunge> does anyone of you have other patches in the queue for doa in kilo/liberty? 12:15:06 < mrunge> itxaka, either david-lyle or I should take care of that 12:15:08 < robcresswell> Best people to speak to are david-lyle and lhcheng 12:15:52 < itxaka> releasing the doa version should be no problem thanks to a david-lyle patch that fixes backwards compatibility https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bug/1526572 12:15:57 < mrunge> worst thing with releases is, process changes from release to release 12:16:40 < robcresswell> As as we're careful, I don't imagine there should be any huge issues. It's just a stable bugfix release. 12:16:41 < mrunge> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseTeam/How_To_Release 12:16:51 < robcresswell> famous last words... 12:17:40 < mrunge> I'd be tagging doa release tomorrow then, if nothing else comes up 12:18:11 < itxaka> I think the workflow of doa -> bump reqs in horizon -> horizon should alliviate any concers tsufiev ? 12:18:44 < tsufiev> itxaka, no, just a little note: bump reqs in openstack/requirements, not in horizon 12:19:01 < tsufiev> then proposal bot will propose a requirements patch into horizon 12:19:35 < itxaka> sounds good to me 12:20:13 < itxaka> mrunge, this affects the liberty branch as well, patches are all merged in liberty (doa and horizon) 12:20:26 < mrunge> ack 12:21:47 < robcresswell> That's the only agenda items 12:22:00 < robcresswell> So: open discussion 12:24:20 < robcresswell> Anyone have any topics? Or we can have some time back :) 12:24:49 < mrunge> masco? 12:24:52 < mrunge> sigh 12:25:55 < r1chardj0n3s> hum, I disappeared for a bit there 12:25:55 < r1chardj0n3s> hope I didn't miss anything 12:26:00 < mrunge> not really, r1chardj0n3s 12:26:02 < robcresswell> Nothing much 12:26:16 < robcresswell> Anything you wanted to discuss? Otherwise I'm gonna call it 12:26:22 < r1chardj0n3s> might be worthwhile reminding folks of https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/horizon-mitaka-midcycle 12:26:28 < mrunge> call it then... 12:26:43 < r1chardj0n3s> reckon we might have a busy enough few days just trying to move code thru that's in play 12:26:52 < r1chardj0n3s> but just in case there's something you'd like to talk about 12:27:02 < r1chardj0n3s> (like angular patch size ;-) 12:27:03 < robcresswell> Yeah, I think we'll be focusing on paired coding and reviews it seems 12:27:16 < mrunge> oh, would it be possible to loop external folks in to midcycle? 12:27:24 < r1chardj0n3s> also, there's a global bugbash coming up 12:27:48 < robcresswell> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/OpenStack-Bug-Smash-Mitaka 12:27:49 < mrunge> angular patch size is indeed a concern of mine 12:28:08 < r1chardj0n3s> thanks robcresswell 12:28:20 < robcresswell> Good point. So this is very similar to our Horizon bug days 12:28:33 < r1chardj0n3s> feel free to pop over to Sydney and smash some bugs with us ... or go somewhere more local ;-) 12:28:43 < robcresswell> It would be good to get involved in the bug day. I'll be at the London location for at least a couple of the days 12:29:14 < r1chardj0n3s> robcresswell: say hi to Alex, who just joined the London office from Brisbane. She says it's cold over there. Who'd have thought. 12:29:48 < robcresswell> Ha, bad decision :p 12:30:06 < r1chardj0n3s> anyway, I don't have anything further, thanks 12:30:23 < r1chardj0n3s> going to bed before midnight sounds nice 12:30:31 < mrunge> masco, you had something to discuss? 12:30:50 < mrunge> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/255854/# 12:31:10 < masco> mrunge, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/255854/ i need ppl opinion on this 12:31:22 < masco> oh you are faster then me 12:31:33 < mrunge> hr hr hr 12:31:56 < mrunge> with that being said, I have to leave, unfortunately :P 12:32:24 < robcresswell> masco: Just reading 12:32:52 < mrunge> it was about to collect feedback, thoughts etc. 12:33:03 < mrunge> it seems to be a good addition, but some disagreement on implementation 12:34:00 < robcresswell> Yep reading comments 12:34:15 < doug-fish> David's suggestion seems good to me - does somebody not like that? 12:34:23 < tsufiev> masco, btw, what are your further plans on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/261930/ ? 12:34:32 < masco> i hope performance wise there will not be much problem 12:35:24 < masco> tsufiev, i think instead of deleting the field just hiding will help. am i right? 12:35:47 < tsufiev> masco, yes, should be a good approach 12:35:53 < masco> since integration needs the shared field 12:35:56 * tsufiev wonders why he didn't think about it 12:36:11 < masco> ok will submit a patch for that 12:36:17 < tsufiev> masco, awesome :) 12:36:30 < masco> tsufiev, :) even i too got this today 12:36:31 < robcresswell> Er, why is an individual user get memoized? 12:36:48 < robcresswell> Just scanning. 12:37:38 < robcresswell> I mean this seems like the memoized part is irrelevant if you're making multiple individual calls 12:37:47 < robcresswell> the id would change, no? 12:38:07 < masco> robcresswell, can change 12:38:25 < masco> i mean for different users 12:38:59 < robcresswell> It seems like it would be poor peformance would it not? just making api calls for each user 12:39:05 < robcresswell> As David noted. 12:39:40 < masco> yes, if each user is different 12:39:49 < robcresswell> I guess it depends on no. of users per instance. Hmm.. 12:39:51 < masco> but practically it won't 12:40:00 < robcresswell> Yeah, it shouldnt be huge. 12:40:28 < masco> yes 12:40:39 < masco> so no worry for performance ;) 12:41:17 < robcresswell> Better speak with david then :) 12:41:46 < masco> robcresswell, sure. thanks. please add your points on it. 12:42:06 < masco> it will help for future reference :) 12:44:04 < robcresswell> Anyone else with discussion points? 12:44:09 < robcresswell> masco: Sure 12:45:41 < robcresswell> We'll end the meeting there, have 15 mins back :) 12:45:54 < masco> i don't have anything specific. but i just want request the core to review my QoS patches :)