Revision as of 17:18, 20 October 2014

Weekly Trove Team Meeting

We have weekly team meetings on Wednesdays at 18:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting-alt

Want to add an agenda item? Please append your item to the upcoming weekly agenda while keeping in mind:

An agenda item should have a clearly defined objective.

Good: Review #xxxxx has comments on foobar.py from multiple folks and there seems to be a lack of consensus on how to solve problem ‘y’. Let’s quickly rehash the merits of both approaches in 2-5 minutes and call for a vote. Goal: choose an approach and move forward on implementation.
Bad: Discuss blueprint ‘xyz’
Bad: Revisit blueprint ‘abc’ that we talked about last week to get answers on remaining disagreements.

When referring to previous conversations or competing viewpoints, be sure to summarize them.

[SlickNik] Discuss trove design summit sessions in the etherpad
- https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-trove-summit-topics
[amcrn] Ask folks to review https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Bugs#Importance and (re-)categorize bugs accordingly.
[amrith and AJaeger] AJaeger started working on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129624/. This same issue was debated in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104616/ and after some deliberation we eventually didn't take the change. My recollection is that this was discussed at the mid-cycle in Cambridge as part of the conversations that led to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115778/ and we decided that we wouldn't take H301. Maybe that was a decision for the Juno cycle only; I don't recall. After speaking with AJaeger, I've put this on the agenda for this meeting because I would like to make sure that we're in favor of this change now before he spends much more time on it, and the attendant fixes to H302 and H304 which produce numerous failures.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ** https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-trove-summit-topics
 * [amcrn] Ask folks to review https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Bugs#Importance and (re-)categorize bugs accordingly.
+* [amrith and AJaeger] AJaeger started working on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129624/. This same issue was debated in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104616/ and after some deliberation we eventually didn't take the change. My recollection is that this was discussed at the mid-cycle in Cambridge as part of the conversations that led to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115778/ and we decided that we wouldn't take H301. Maybe that was a decision for the Juno cycle only; I don't recall. After speaking with AJaeger, I've put this on the agenda for this meeting because I would like to make sure that we're in favor of this change now before he spends much more time on it, and the attendant fixes to H302 and H304 which produce numerous failures.
 <br /><br />