08:00:24 <morgan_orange> #startmeeting Functest weekly meeting September 13rd
08:00:24 <collabot`> Meeting started Tue Sep 13 08:00:24 2016 UTC.  The chair is morgan_orange. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:00:24 <collabot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
08:00:24 <collabot`> The meeting name has been set to 'functest_weekly_meeting_september_13rd'
08:00:28 <morgan_orange> #topic call role
08:00:33 <morgan_orange> #info morgan Richomme
08:00:36 <viktor_t> #info Viktor Tikkanen
08:00:40 <juhak> #info Juha Kosonen
08:00:45 <CristinaPauna> #info Cristina Pauna (ENEA)
08:00:52 <jose_lausuch> #info Jose Lausuch
08:00:58 <lhinds> #info Luke Hinds
08:01:19 <morgan_orange> #info agenda https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/Functest+Meeting
08:01:29 <morgan_orange> is Rohit connected?
08:01:43 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> A comment has been added to a proposed change to functest: Push FAIL to DB for onos-sfc  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20851
08:01:48 <morgan_orange> any topic you want to add?
08:01:59 <morgan_orange> we may notice the first meeting of our new friend OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot
08:02:09 <morgan_orange> #topic action point follow-up
08:02:09 <jose_lausuch> :)
08:02:23 <MatthewLi> #info Jun Li
08:02:35 <morgan_orange> #link http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-functest/2016/opnfv-functest.2016-09-06-08.00.html
08:02:42 <morgan_orange> #info AP1 jose_lausuch ollivier find best way to coloradoize our docker and try to keep a master to be able to test changes without breaking colorado gate
08:02:47 <morgan_orange> #info done, using arg, 2 docker files availables
08:02:57 <morgan_orange> #info AP2 jose_lausuch sync for apex/bgpvpn
08:03:09 <jose_lausuch> 1sc
08:03:18 <jose_lausuch> created a jira for that
08:03:54 <morgan_orange> #info AP3 jose_lausuch sync for apex/sfc
08:04:24 <jose_lausuch> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/APEX-219
08:05:20 <jose_lausuch> #info apex-sfc has the same status as fuel-sfc, there has been some failures in the boron releases, currently testing Boron RC3.5 which came out yesterday and it's the release candidate
08:05:24 <morgan_orange> OK we should probably reference this JIRA in the release note
08:05:31 <morgan_orange> #info patch submitted for SFC, new try, new hope...
08:05:40 <morgan_orange> #info AP4 May-meimei sync for apex/onos and apex/onos-sfc
08:05:41 <jose_lausuch> #info if that still gives us problems, we will report that in the release notes and leave the test failing (known upstream bug)
08:06:16 <morgan_orange> onos and onos-sfc not run anymore in apex/Colorado
08:07:17 <May-meimei> morgan_orange: stop the jobs of sfc?
08:07:43 <raghav> #info raghavendrachari
08:07:49 <morgan_orange> no jobs are still there but not passing healthcheck
08:07:49 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> A comment has been added to a proposed change to functest: [ODL-SFC] Add push resulst to DB  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20929
08:08:00 <morgan_orange> https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/apex/job/functest-apex-apex-daily-colorado-daily-colorado/157/console
08:08:40 <morgan_orange> I was wondering if somebody on onos side was looking at the issue
08:09:07 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> Jose Lausuch proposed functest: [ODL-SFC] Add push resulst to DB  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20929
08:09:11 <morgan_orange> it seems to affect only apex
08:09:15 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> A comment has been added to a proposed change to functest: [ODL-SFC] Add push resulst to DB  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20929
08:09:16 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> A comment has been added to a proposed change to functest: [ODL-SFC] Add push resulst to DB  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20929
08:09:22 <jose_lausuch> sorry for the spam :D
08:09:30 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> A comment has been added to a proposed change to functest: [ODL-SFC] Add push resulst to DB  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20929
08:09:41 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange sync with apex/onos
08:09:47 <morgan_orange> #info AP5 May-meimei sync compass/onos-sfc
08:09:51 <jose_lausuch> ok guys, let's stop working during the meeting
08:09:59 <morgan_orange> #info idem AP4
08:10:04 <morgan_orange> #info AP6 SerenaFeng sync fuel/doctor
08:10:04 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> A comment has been added to a proposed change to functest: [ODL-SFC] Add push resulst to DB  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20929
08:10:16 <morgan_orange> there is a pending patch
08:10:23 <SerenaFeng> yeah,
08:10:34 <SerenaFeng> they are still disscussing about the process
08:10:36 <morgan_orange> today fuel/doctor prevents at least 6 scenarios to be run
08:10:53 <morgan_orange> #link https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/20663/
08:10:56 <jose_lausuch> I wanted to bring that up during the release meeting yesterday, but there was no time
08:11:35 <morgan_orange> #info discussions on how to fix doctor in fuel pending..is there any date before moving from Colorado 1.0 to colorado 2.0
08:11:44 <jose_lausuch> cgoncalves: ping
08:11:53 <CristinaPauna> #info https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/20627/ was abandoned
08:11:54 <morgan_orange> #info fuel team in the patch mentioned a possible fix beginning of this week from doctor
08:12:24 <morgan_orange> #info fuel scenarios are fine, it is just a decision from release management to see until when we try ...
08:12:44 <morgan_orange> #info AP done (it is more a question for release management, Doctor/fuel team)
08:12:51 <morgan_orange> #info AP7 viktor_t review scenarios where tempest is not fully sunny
08:13:16 <morgan_orange> #info AP8 juhak review scenarios where rally is not fully sunny
08:13:27 <juhak> #info there were failed cases on os-nosdn-lxd-ha/noha scenarios, corrected along with FUNCTEST-460 and FUNCTEST-464
08:13:48 <morgan_orange> #info AP9 morgan_orange test rally black list on lxd scenario
08:13:53 <morgan_orange> #info done, lxd scenario now both OK for joid
08:13:57 <morgan_orange> #info AP10 morgan_orange add push to DB in odl_sfc
08:14:01 <morgan_orange> #info patch created by José, review in progress https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/20929
08:14:09 <morgan_orange> and currently under review..
08:14:19 <jose_lausuch> morgan_orange: we will need also some patching in the dashboard, right?
08:14:19 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange wait for merge before enabling it in reporting
08:14:24 <jose_lausuch> adding the sfc test case to the scenario
08:14:28 <jose_lausuch> or that's automatic/
08:15:21 <morgan_orange> almost..https://git.opnfv.org/cgit/releng/tree/utils/test/reporting/functest/reportingConf.py
08:15:43 <morgan_orange> config adaptation to be planned
08:15:48 <morgan_orange> should not be long
08:15:55 <morgan_orange> #info AP11 SerenaFeng Raghav review Yardstick documentation
08:15:59 <morgan_orange> I saw only Serena review
08:16:00 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:16:19 <morgan_orange> raghav: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/20509/
08:16:25 <morgan_orange> please review directly in gerrit
08:16:35 <SerenaFeng> it patches a lot
08:16:36 <raghav> yes am doign now .. today i'll finish
08:16:39 <morgan_orange> #action raghav review yardstick
08:16:49 <morgan_orange> #info AP12 morgan_orange add CristinaPauna and Alex Avadanii in Functest doc review
08:16:54 <CristinaPauna> #info I didn't get any review invitation for documentation containg arm references
08:16:57 <morgan_orange> #info done for CristinaPauna, Alex not found in gerrit reviewers
08:17:29 <CristinaPauna> #info https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/20315/ does not contain diffs for arm
08:17:59 <CristinaPauna> #info I did see thoug in the existing docs some referenced to arm that I would like to modify
08:18:07 <CristinaPauna> # should I do that directly?
08:18:18 <morgan_orange> Ok I have to check there are some in the doc but maybe not in the fiels under review
08:18:30 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange check arm ref and add them in the doc review for CristinaPauna
08:18:36 <morgan_orange> #info AP13 morgan_orange pushich topic 2 and 6
08:18:43 <morgan_orange> #info done +1 with topic on VNF catalog
08:19:12 <morgan_orange> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Intern-projects-page
08:19:18 <morgan_orange> #info AP14 everybody review and comment D wiki page
08:19:26 <morgan_orange> Focus on Colorado... to be discussed in next sections
08:19:38 <morgan_orange> any comments on the different action points?
08:19:46 <jose_lausuch> nop
08:19:55 <morgan_orange> viktor_t: do you want to comment your AP?
08:20:18 <viktor_t> I checked apex/os-odl_l2-sfc-noha case
08:20:37 <viktor_t> probably will create a Jira case if Tim will not comment
08:20:50 <morgan_orange> ok
08:20:57 <morgan_orange> #topic Colorado
08:21:20 <morgan_orange> #info I reported to Release management that  from Functest perspective, it would be possible to release today     as most of the scenarios are OK and all the remaining errors are     understood and documented in the release note.
08:21:55 <morgan_orange> maybe check onos on apex (could be considered as a regressiona s it used to work with brahmaputra as far as I remember and we also add successful runs in master...)
08:22:43 <morgan_orange> #info apex: first green scenario light on monday
08:23:17 <morgan_orange> #link http://testresults.opnfv.org/reporting/functest/release/colorado/index-status-apex.html
08:23:28 <morgan_orange> #info issues already discussed in AP follow up section
08:23:47 <morgan_orange> #info note all the odl_l3 scenarios will be failed whatever the installer
08:23:52 <morgan_orange> #info compass
08:23:55 <morgan_orange> #link http://testresults.opnfv.org/reporting/functest/release/colorado/index-status-compass.html
08:24:14 <morgan_orange> #info work in progress in moon (apparently Tempest OK and moon OK, issue on odl known and documented)
08:24:29 <morgan_orange> #info fuel
08:24:32 <morgan_orange> #link http://testresults.opnfv.org/reporting/functest/release/colorado/index-status-fuel.html
08:24:47 <morgan_orange> #info already some green scenarios...without doctor most of them will be green
08:25:10 <morgan_orange> #info fix on noha scenarios merged yesterday (test excluded in HA but not in noha)
08:25:16 <morgan_orange> #info joid
08:25:23 <morgan_orange> #link http://testresults.opnfv.org/reporting/functest/release/colorado/index-status-joid.html
08:25:29 <morgan_orange> #info most of the scenarios OK
08:25:47 <morgan_orange> note during the release meeting, tehre were some confusion between functest reporting and release reporting
08:26:01 <morgan_orange> people seem afraid of red...
08:26:17 <jose_lausuch> yes, and this is only the functest view
08:26:27 <jose_lausuch> whcih doesnt mean it has to be the release gate
08:26:36 <morgan_orange> I explained that green is only when everything is fine in Functest
08:26:53 <morgan_orange> even red status in Functest can be declared OK for a release (because we documented the issue)
08:27:06 <morgan_orange> but I do not see the point to put green just to put green..
08:27:14 <morgan_orange> a gauge will be probably better
08:27:24 <morgan_orange> and less frightening
08:27:33 <jose_lausuch> Danube improvement :)
08:27:55 <morgan_orange> but as mentioned in the introduction today, Functest will be OK for the release (last review to be done on user guide + release note)
08:28:16 <morgan_orange> are you OK with the statement (there are still open JIRA to be cleaned before the release..)
08:29:11 <jose_lausuch> can we still delay our release?
08:29:12 <jose_lausuch> meaning
08:29:27 <jose_lausuch> can we say: we are ok, but if we release a bit later, we might have less bugs
08:29:37 <jose_lausuch> or bugs to report in the release notes
08:29:57 <morgan_orange> it is always the case... :)
08:30:15 <morgan_orange> so yes we can say that but I would say that today there is no objection for releasing
08:30:35 <jose_lausuch> ok
08:31:18 <morgan_orange> #info no objection for Colorado releasing from Functest
08:31:21 <jose_lausuch> I have a request for the bgpvpn scenario
08:31:28 <jose_lausuch> from the team
08:31:34 <jose_lausuch> maybe for AoB
08:31:38 <jose_lausuch> if there is time
08:31:53 <morgan_orange> ok
08:32:11 <morgan_orange> #topic Security Audit is coming...
08:32:27 <morgan_orange> #info in fact it came, errors shared with core developpers
08:32:52 <morgan_orange> #info no critical issues, yesterday patch abandonned due to confusion json.yaml load/safe_load
08:33:02 <lhinds> So we are almost there, last patch is on use of eval. But I believe we might be able to abandon this too....
08:33:23 <lhinds> For anyone who wants to read the techincal backgound: http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201206/eval_really_is_dangerous.html
08:33:33 <lhinds> Save me typing it all out.
08:33:46 <morgan_orange> I was happy...I expected hundreds of page from bandit ...
08:33:55 <lhinds> So the concern is, when eval is accepting input from an untrusted source
08:33:59 <morgan_orange> but at the end it seems that we did not bad...
08:34:02 <lhinds> For example, a webform.
08:34:12 <lhinds> But I believe this is not the case with the API code
08:34:29 <lhinds> it seems like its more being used for mongodb string filtering etc.
08:34:38 <SerenaFeng> and ast.literal can not substitue all of eval works
08:34:49 <lhinds> So if we can confirm that no input comes externally, then we can abandon
08:35:08 <SerenaFeng> I sustitue almost all of evals in testapi except mongodb access
08:35:09 <lhinds> I believe no input comes externally, but I am not the best person to know the code well.
08:35:24 <morgan_orange> ok
08:35:34 <SerenaFeng> abandon means?
08:35:52 <morgan_orange> we do not have lots of interaction with external world except the test API
08:36:14 <morgan_orange> #topic D release: discussion with OAI
08:36:22 <SerenaFeng> so we don't need to subsitute eval with literal_eval?
08:36:36 <morgan_orange> Rohit_openairint: mae a presentation on Open Air Interface last thursday during teh testing weekly meeting
08:36:41 <lhinds> Only if you take external input.
08:36:52 <Rohit_openairint> yes
08:37:04 <lhinds> from an untrusted source (the internet / a user outside)
08:37:05 <morgan_orange> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/rest/documentConversion/latest/conversion/thumbnail/7767229/1
08:37:16 <SerenaFeng> lhinds ok, I will abandon my patch
08:37:20 <lhinds> k, SerenaFeng will ping you after the meeting
08:37:28 <lhinds> Let's discuss there
08:37:37 <SerenaFeng> lhinds ok
08:37:41 <morgan_orange> OAI developed several VNFs, I think we could consider the vEPC deployed through a JUJU VNFM for D release
08:38:28 <morgan_orange> my view is to follow vIMS best practices
08:38:36 <Rohit_openairint> we are currently looking at using FUEL to deploy OAI
08:38:53 <Rohit_openairint> yes, we are looking at vIMS scripts and see how to best integrate our code
08:38:58 <morgan_orange> do you have dependencies towards the installer? vIMS can be deployed on any installer
08:39:11 <morgan_orange> what I suggested is
08:39:14 <Rohit_openairint> For EPC, we will need 14.04 Ubuntu + 4.7.x kernel (for GTP module)
08:39:36 <Rohit_openairint> We need to use KVM only because of GTP kernel module
08:40:01 <morgan_orange> joid scenario supports xenial
08:40:04 <Rohit_openairint> In my opinion, if we deploy on FUEL, it can deployed on JUJU, or any other installer, correct?
08:40:09 <morgan_orange> yes
08:40:30 <Rohit_openairint> I would prefer 14.04 for the moment. We are working on supporting Xenial internally
08:40:45 <morgan_orange> ok 14.04 are also supported
08:41:05 <Rohit_openairint> We would also need minimum system requirements for deploying JOID on single machine
08:41:36 <Rohit_openairint> at least in my lab@Open
08:41:47 <Rohit_openairint> I am deploying OPNFV in single machine
08:42:12 <morgan_orange> ok you can also ask for access to community labs
08:42:45 <morgan_orange> but then you need to precise the resources you need and the scenario if needed (dependencies towards the controller?)
08:42:48 <Rohit_openairint> yes, but it will be also good to have our own local testbench for debugging, troubleshooting. At least for JOID, the requirements were very high
08:42:55 <Rohit_openairint> FUEL was okay on single machine
08:43:17 <morgan_orange> ok
08:43:29 <Rohit_openairint> do you see issues with using 4.7.x kernel compiled from source within OPNFV
08:43:34 <Rohit_openairint> for vEPC use case?
08:44:40 <Rohit_openairint> Is it also possible to deploy EPC on bare-metal compute nodes instead of KVM?
08:44:49 <Rohit_openairint> from OPNFV environment
08:45:07 <morgan_orange> if i is specific, you will probably need to create your own scenario
08:45:13 <Rohit_openairint> I see
08:45:21 <morgan_orange> like KVM or OVS
08:45:45 <Rohit_openairint> and this can be created from OPNFV functest scripts, right?
08:45:47 <morgan_orange> teh vIMS can be run on "generic" scenario, i.e. without kernel patching of the infrastructure
08:45:56 <Rohit_openairint> yes
08:46:04 <morgan_orange> no scenarios are more linked to the installers
08:46:17 <morgan_orange> functest is "just" deploying and running the tests
08:46:38 <Rohit_openairint> OK, I take a note of this
08:47:59 <morgan_orange> so to be clear, you do not need ressources (user/tenant/..) but a specific configuration of the infra?
08:48:13 <morgan_orange> the kernel change could not be only at the image level
08:48:15 <Rohit_openairint> I think we need to study OPNFV first
08:48:17 <Rohit_openairint> a bit
08:48:29 <Rohit_openairint> and then come back with some proposals
08:49:05 <Rohit_openairint> for specific kernel, we should use scenario which needs to be created via installer
08:49:09 <morgan_orange> concretely today you are not able to run your VNF in any commercial Cloud solution (as the kernel is not patched) or is the issue only for the image of your VNF
08:49:45 <Rohit_openairint> we can run it inside KVM (with modified kernel)
08:50:10 <morgan_orange> so looks like the kvm scenario to me
08:50:14 <Rohit_openairint> we can also have another approach only for functest. We have slightly older tag which uses only 3.19 generic kernel
08:50:28 <Rohit_openairint> we can use this as we do not need to do high throughput tests anyway
08:50:33 <lhinds> +1 on jose_lausuch AOB discussion on networking-bgp I am interested in that too
08:51:02 <morgan_orange> Ok, let's try to deploy it on an existing OPNFV and see the gap
08:51:09 <Rohit_openairint> OK
08:51:22 <Rohit_openairint> we do some analysis and come back with possible solutions to you
08:51:32 <morgan_orange> ok
08:52:04 <morgan_orange> #info discussion on vEPC/OAI integration - maybe a scenario is needed (kvm like) to be tested on existing OPNFV
08:52:13 <morgan_orange> #topic Meetup
08:52:29 <morgan_orange> last week we say that some of us will attend the OpenStack Summit
08:52:31 <morgan_orange> but not all
08:52:42 <morgan_orange> shall we plan a meetup as we did in Espoo
08:52:49 <morgan_orange> if so after or before openStack Summit
08:53:06 <jose_lausuch> +1 for Laninon!
08:53:17 <jose_lausuch> I'd say after OpenStack
08:53:19 <morgan_orange> discussions on D release started planning is supposed to be completed on the 13th of October...
08:53:26 <jose_lausuch> wait
08:53:32 <jose_lausuch> OS summit is at the end of OCtober...
08:53:40 <jose_lausuch> mmm
08:53:40 <morgan_orange> scenario defined 3/11
08:53:49 <morgan_orange> test cases defined 18/11
08:53:54 <morgan_orange> oops
08:53:57 <morgan_orange> no 1/12
08:54:08 <jose_lausuch> What about beginning of OCtobe?
08:54:12 <morgan_orange> installer integration completed for the 18/11
08:54:29 <morgan_orange> I did not react to the planning...
08:54:31 <morgan_orange> yet
08:54:39 <morgan_orange> still branching windows
08:54:54 <morgan_orange> Ok for a meetup in Lannion beginning of October
08:55:03 <morgan_orange> is it not a bit short / business trip?
08:55:23 <jose_lausuch> why dont we create a pool?
08:55:29 <jose_lausuch> and people put whats best
08:55:32 <morgan_orange> wht about the 6,7 or 13,14 if you want to stay over the week end...
08:55:34 <morgan_orange> ok
08:55:48 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange prepare pool for Functest meetup in Lannion
08:56:00 <jose_lausuch> I think its the best option for now, since we can
08:56:04 <jose_lausuch> can't decide it now
08:56:22 <morgan_orange> ok
08:56:25 <morgan_orange> #topic AOB
08:56:33 <morgan_orange> ho ahead with bgpvpn
08:56:40 <jose_lausuch> ok, I'll explain our concern
08:56:41 <jose_lausuch> so
08:56:49 <jose_lausuch> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/SDNVPN-54
08:57:04 <jose_lausuch> #info most of the bgpvpn scenarios are failing in CI due to a timeout
08:57:26 <jose_lausuch> #info the tests are working, its simply the calls to neutron/nova api take too long, but they work
08:57:59 <jose_lausuch> #info for example, tempest 100% successful but takes 1 hour for the smoke, same for rally sanity
08:58:24 <jose_lausuch> our idea was that we could disable rally testing for bgpvpn scenarios, and put a comment in the release notes
08:58:38 <jose_lausuch> since rally is mostly dealing with performance of apis
08:58:42 <jose_lausuch> not functionality
08:58:49 <jose_lausuch> and we think that will be fixed in Boron
08:59:11 <jose_lausuch> but Odl beryllium still causes the issue, and we are not sure we can fix that for Colorado
08:59:20 <morgan_orange> I have no objection, somehow it corresponds to the request from Frank for a scenario owner to be able to select the cases
08:59:22 <jose_lausuch> would that be ok?
08:59:27 <morgan_orange> As said I have no objection
08:59:41 <morgan_orange> today there are not such mechanism, but it will not be difficult
08:59:45 <jose_lausuch> for sure we need to add a comment in release notes
08:59:48 <morgan_orange> we should porobably do like in yardstick
08:59:53 <jose_lausuch> ok
09:00:03 <jose_lausuch> I will propose a patch then
09:00:19 <morgan_orange> craeate a os-odl_l2-bgpvpn-ha config file with just the list of test to be run
09:00:27 <morgan_orange> and it should overwritte the default mechanism
09:00:52 <morgan_orange> we should probably API it so scenrio owner could build this list and create automatically the list in the future
09:00:55 <jose_lausuch> or just add a restriction in rally
09:01:10 <jose_lausuch> ya, that's Danube :)
09:01:18 <morgan_orange> yep
09:01:37 <morgan_orange> since lxd there is already the possibility to black list cases in rally
09:01:40 <jose_lausuch> ok, that was it, thanks
09:01:54 <morgan_orange> ok no objection from me, juhak?
09:02:06 <morgan_orange> for me the scenario owner is master on board...
09:02:09 <juhak> fine for me
09:02:12 <jose_lausuch> we might blacklist rally completelly for Colorado.1.0, and enable it again for Colorado.2.0 which comes with boron
09:02:26 <morgan_orange> ok
09:02:41 <morgan_orange> #info bgpvpn scenario blacklist rally completelly for Colorado.1.0, and enable it again for Colorado.2.0 which comes with boron
09:02:46 <morgan_orange> any other topic for AoB
09:02:53 <jose_lausuch> not from me
09:03:16 <morgan_orange> just saw the mail from Chris, no more TSC chair next year...I need to organize also Functest election...
09:03:32 <OPNFV-Gerrit-Bot> A comment has been added to a proposed change to functest: Add judgement after executing Sfc.py  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/20413
09:04:01 <morgan_orange> SerenaFeng: we did not talk about ELK, we will do it offline, I will contact the guy from bitergia
09:04:11 <SerenaFeng> okey
09:04:17 <SerenaFeng> no problem
09:04:19 <morgan_orange> #action morgan_orange contact bitergia / ELK
09:04:34 <morgan_orange> ok if no more question, it is all for this week
09:04:38 <morgan_orange> thanks for attending
09:04:43 <morgan_orange> enjoy the Colorado last miles
09:04:55 <morgan_orange> and let's start discussing of the Danube
09:05:01 <morgan_orange> #endmeeting