21:00:39 #startmeeting 2017-03-22 discussion 21:00:39 Meeting started Wed Mar 22 21:00:39 2017 UTC. The chair is vbatts. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 21:00:39 The meeting name has been set to '2017_03_22_discussion' 21:01:17 vbatts: chair me? Not sure how much I'll be able to type, but you never know ;) 21:01:39 no 21:01:41 ;-) 21:01:48 #chair wking mrunalp 21:01:48 Current chairs: mrunalp vbatts wking 21:02:05 #topic times for future meetings 21:02:08 crosbymichael, stevvooe: Joining? 21:02:19 mrunalp: i'll be there shortly 21:02:38 #topic runtime-spec 1.0 burn-down 21:02:50 vbatts: are we waiting for Docker and cri-o before a 30-day quiet period? 21:03:05 mrunalp: I don't think there's an official need for a 30-day quiet period 21:03:31 ^ I agree that there's no official need for 30 days of quiet before 1.0, but I still think it's a good idea 21:05:32 If nothing has changed since rc5, I agree that there's no point in cutting an rc6 (although I'm not sure what's landed since rc5) 21:05:46 crosbymichael: I don't think rc6 is very critical 21:05:56 crosbymichael: we're working on getting Docker up to date now 21:06:18 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/issues/726 21:06:41 vbatts: we could vote for 1.0 and have 30 days of quiet afterwards 21:07:19 mrunalp: I don't think we want 30 days of quiet after 1.0. It should be before 21:07:24 wking: only 8 PRs merged since rc5 21:08:10 crosbymichael: we're not clear on the 30-day, Member-notification period around releases 21:08:30 vbatts: the charter says the 30 days are after a new version 21:08:40 #link https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance section 8.d 21:09:24 will 1.0 be a tag or a branch? 21:09:54 crosbymichael: what happens if they reject after a release? 21:09:55 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/issues/726 21:10:06 (already done) 21:11:17 RobDolinMS: Once we're happy, we can cut an rc6, send out notices, wait 30 days, and then tag it 1.0 if there were no problems, then 30 days for the charter's lawyer review 21:11:57 RobDolinMS: I think Chris reached out to Mike Dolan about when the 30 days are, and would rather have them answer that 21:12:12 RobDolinMS: I'd rather send cracra an email 21:12:16 crosbymichael: yeah, we can do that 21:12:23 mrunalp: cri-o will be done by next week 21:12:43 [caniszczyk, Open Container Initiative] once you vote on v1.0 final and the vote is approved, the 30 day starts (note this doesn't mean that the release isn't final, it just gives members 30 days due to the IP policy) 21:12:47 [caniszczyk, Open Container Initiative] hope that makes sense 21:13:43 cracra: so what does that mean if a member does not accept it? 21:14:19 cracra: after the release, members have 30 days to decide to leave or not 21:14:45 cracra: 1.0s are the same as any release. You can just vote "we're going to tag rc6 (or whatever) as 1.0" 21:15:14 vbatts: what are the IP issues? 21:15:27 cracra: it's a patent grant largely orthogonal to releasing 21:15:58 cracra: it's a strange IP policy, but that's what we agreed to before starting 21:16:12 cracra: I've been pre-briefing folks, so I don't think anyone will be surprised by a 1.0 21:16:52 RobDolinMS: For example, some organization has a patent which is covered by the spec, and then that member would be granting a zero-cost license by accepting that spec version 21:17:19 cracra: I'd rather have the TDC focus on cutting the release, and we'll work behind the scenes to cover the patent thing 21:18:28 RobDolinMS: Hopefully companies with large patent portfolios will continue to stay in the OCI, and this gives implementers assurances that those patents won't be asserted against the implementations 21:18:49 ^ this makes me a lot happier :) 21:20:07 #630 and #720 are the only interesting changes since rc5 21:21:04 vbatts: the only thing new for 1.0 would be a 1.0.x branch, if we want to do that. 21:21:08 mrunalp: I think we can defer that 21:21:51 crosbymichael: hopefully it quiets down after 1.0 21:22:31 vbatts: is a containerd update part of the milestone? 21:22:36 crosbymichael: it's what Docker is currently doing 21:22:49 crosbymichael: we need to port over the new TTY, etc. runc changes 21:23:20 vbatts: it would be good to get a vote out within a week or less 21:24:22 stevvooe: are we not following the milestone? 21:24:29 vbatts: right now the milestone is just #726 21:24:36 stevvooe: rc6 has seven issues 21:24:42 vbatts: we're not to image-spec 21:25:58 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/588 21:26:02 #topic image-spec 21:26:07 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/588 21:26:30 stevvooe: I've never had problems with this, and don't know what we can put in the spec to cement these issues 21:26:40 stevvooe: I'm not sure where to take this, and look forward having cyphar on the call 21:27:15 RobDolinMS: The spec should define what it is, not how to implement it 21:27:42 stevvooe: the request is for an implementer's note. I think the data structures are obvious, but that could be my familiarity 21:27:53 stevvooe: the data structures define the algorithms, not the other way around 21:28:03 vbatts: there's nothing about algorithms in the current note 21:28:20 stevvooe: right. That's what this issue is asking for. Do we need to encode that in the spec 21:28:47 vbatts: an encoutered media type that is unknown should be safely ignored... 21:29:04 stevvooe: I think the issues are "how to handle names that aren't unique?" and platform selection 21:29:11 vbatts: there's been lots of discussion about that 21:29:32 stevvooe: I think the conclusions are a little hyperbolic, but the core is a concern that some things may be underspecified 21:29:57 crosbymichael: the more you start dictating implementations, the more it hurts implementers 21:30:08 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/622 21:30:16 ^ confusion about what 'features' means 21:31:04 stevvooe: I think we'll miss wide if we try to explain the datastructure math, and could be inconsistent with what the data structure actually is 21:31:16 stevvooe: effectively what crosbymichael said 21:33:38 stevvooe: maybe merging the spec would help, so it's harder to selectively read the spec 21:33:51 stevvooe: e.g. read one section but miss something important in another section 21:34:40 stevvooe: so I'll keep pointing at code in containerd about how to deal with this. There aren't many ways to deal with this 21:35:40 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/620 21:35:46 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/618 21:35:50 stevvooe: do we want to make that change in the spec too, but just in Go? 21:35:55 * but -> or 21:35:58 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/620 21:36:51 crosbymichael: the split didn't make much sense to me when I read the spec 21:36:57 stevvooe: yeah, and cyphar ran into this as well 21:37:27 stevvooe: for example, if your visitor is looking at an index, but is calling a handler that doesn't care if the descriptors are ManifestDescriptors or Descriptors 21:38:20 stevvooe: currently as the spec reads it would just be ignored (when parsing JSON) 21:38:25 vbatts: like JSON Schema? 21:38:30 stevvooe: yeah. Do we need to do that? 21:39:26 vbatts: if someone is using a descriptor outside the manifest, where we don't carry additional fields, having 'platform' doesn't make it invalid 21:39:36 vbatts: so maybe no, because it's testing an assumed-broken use case 21:39:50 stevvooe: so we can merge #620, and we can adjust the spec later if we need 21:40:39 #topic meeting times 21:40:49 RobDolinMS: 8am Pacific and 5pm Pacific 21:40:59 RobDolinMS: There's a proposal to alternate even-odd 21:41:22 vbatts: start that next week? But next week is KubeCon 21:41:37 vbatts: 8am is terrible? 21:41:46 RobDolinMS: 8am is dropping off kids and walking the dog ;) 21:42:02 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/719 21:42:09 crosbymichael: hopefully post 1.0 these calls are less critical 21:42:21 crosbymichael: "same" 21:42:22 crosbymichael: I think they're still useful for conflict resolution 21:42:26 xD 21:43:19 RobDolinMS: So starting next week? 21:44:40 RobDolinMS: Wed 3-29 lots of people will be in Europe, so favor Europe then 21:44:47 I'll update my PR to do that^ 21:45:06 #topic 1.0 releases 21:45:19 vbatts: for the runtime, we're mostly through the final burn-down 21:45:56 vbatts: we want to see more testing. Docker and cri-o, although containerd, etc. would be nice 21:46:04 vbatts: we want to see good test coverage there next week 21:46:13 vbatts: then put up a 1.0 vote 21:46:50 vbatts: the vote will happen like normal, with a tagged release, and then the 30-day stuff happens out of band 21:47:13 vbatts: for the image spec, there's an rc6 milestone to burn down, and then it will go through the same 1.0 proces 21:47:25 vbatts: so a bit behind the runtime spec, but the same 1.0 process 21:47:36 vbatts: best case scenario is a runtime-spec 1.0 in two weeks 21:47:49 vbatts: I don't know what an ideal time would be for image-spec 21:48:01 vbatts: closing it out before April 15th woudl be a beautiful thing 21:48:46 tianon: I'll take a stab at pushing an ICS to match a README 21:49:26 that's for minutes? I can do that 21:49:56 <3 21:49:58 vbatts: other issues? 21:50:05 #topic image-spec issues 21:50:13 stevvooe: I just closed #493 21:50:19 stevvooe: let me know if you disagree 21:50:32 stevvooe: the charset stuff in #599 needs help, if anyone has time. 21:50:37 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/599 21:50:42 stevvooe: do we have a help-wanted label? 21:50:49 vbatts: can you manage labels without write access? 21:50:55 no 21:51:04 stevvooe: help-wanted exists 21:51:47 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/599 21:52:10 https://twitter.com/DockerCuties/status/839614192436948992 21:52:54 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/415 21:53:03 stevvooe: we still need Microsoft validation here^ 21:53:15 tianon: <3 21:53:16 RobDolinMS: is that the one with some email last week? 21:53:19 stevvooe: yeah 21:53:28 vbatts|cutie 21:53:32 ++ 21:53:33 RobDolinMS: I'll forward that to some Windows folks today 21:53:45 stevvooe: I think we can take #400 of the 1.0 milestone 21:53:48 vbatts: so post-1.0? 21:53:55 stevvooe: I think we have enough to go on 21:54:05 stevvooe: you can sign a hash, and that's enough for now 21:55:01 RobDolinMS: You can assign #415 to me, but make a note that I'm asking for colleague import 21:55:04 * input 21:55:26 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/492 21:55:28 stevvooe: do we merge #492? That's the only one I can see taking extra time 21:55:59 stevvooe: I think cyphar needs another pass on this 21:56:12 stevvooe: and I was going to have some of our people take another peek at it 21:57:03 #endmeeting