- 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 :)
