#opendaylight-meeting: Weekly TSC Meeting 2014-07-10

Meeting started by phrobb at 16:59:20 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

    1. regXboi (ryan) (regXboi, 16:59:27)
    2. dmm (dmm, 16:59:28)

  2. Rollcall TSC members please #info in (phrobb, 16:59:38)
    1. edwarnicke (edwarnicke, 17:00:55)
    2. Chris Price (ChrisPriceAB, 17:00:58)
    3. Kent Watsen (kwatsen, 17:01:31)
    4. Chris Wright (cdub, 17:03:21)
    5. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Main (dmm, 17:04:15)
    6. specific agenda at (regXboi, 17:04:39)
    7. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Main#Meeting_Agenda (regXboi, 17:04:48)
    8. call for presentations for chicago and for sdn meeting in october (I can't really hear phil) (regXboi, 17:05:49)
    9. question from dmm: is there a dedicated slot for opendaylight? (regXboi, 17:06:09)
    10. answer there is a track for opendaylight that phrobb is managing (regXboi, 17:06:29)
    11. Lenrow (dlenrow, 17:06:40)

  3. event updates (regXboi, 17:06:43)
    1. note: previous three infos apply to this topic (regXboi, 17:07:00)
    2. welcome Dave (Lenrow) and other TSC members (dmm, 17:07:00)

  4. committer promotions (regXboi, 17:07:47)
    1. considering Michal Rehak to committer on OpenFlowJavaLibrary (regXboi, 17:08:10)
    2. AGREED: since Daniel is not around, this discussion is deferred to 7/17 (regXboi, 17:09:45)
    3. looking for a TSC volunteer for drafting guidelines for how to get a committer promoted (regXboi, 17:10:18)
    4. volunteered (ChrisPriceAB, 17:10:48)
    5. ACTION: ChrisPriceAB to draft guidelines for how to get a committer promoted (regXboi, 17:10:58)

  5. request to respin stable/hydrogen due to bugs found/fixed (regXboi, 17:11:20)
    1. https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/release/2014-July/000037.html (edwarnicke, 17:11:37)
    2. https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/release/2014-July/000039.html (edwarnicke, 17:12:16)
    3. first link is request to respin stable/hydrogen (regXboi, 17:12:36)
    4. request from BGPCEP to respin hydrogen stable release. Discussion occured in M3 developer meeting (phrobb, 17:12:49)
    5. second link is request to TSC to respin stable/hydrogen (regXboi, 17:13:05)
    6. folks at M3 dev meeting left the decision to respin to the TSC (phrobb, 17:14:01)
    7. Q what is the impact on existing projects in Hydrogen by the respin? (phrobb, 17:14:24)
    8. question from dmm : what is the impact of a respin of stable/hydrogen (regXboi, 17:14:25)
    9. the short answer from (regXboi) is that all the projects should retest (regXboi, 17:15:06)
    10. kwatsen notes that full regression test may not be needed if the issue is isolated to BGPCEP (phrobb, 17:17:09)
    11. edwarnicke comments that the cherry picks include fixes to yangtools which cuts across everything (regXboi, 17:17:35)
    12. dmm points out that unwanted regressions would be ... disappointing (regXboi, 17:18:15)
    13. regXboi asks "how quickly will we want to do a second stable hydrogen?" (phrobb, 17:18:45)
    14. regXboi notes we are sill missing stable documents (phrobb, 17:20:24)
    15. It is noted that we need to get the first hydrogen relesase out asap with no known bugs... (phrobb, 17:21:40)
    16. having a future release that includes stable-branch associated documentation can then be done (phrobb, 17:22:28)
    17. edwarnicke suggests mechanics that say, cut a release In X amount of time, Allow projects to test then object to the releaes by date/time X. If no objections, the TSC will promote to a full release (phrobb, 17:24:30)
    18. We need to decide three dates: When the respin happens, When projects need to have completed testing and raised an objection by, When will artifacts go out if not decided by (edwarnicke, 17:24:58)
    19. ACTION: cdub to send mail with to hydrogen/stable projects about upcoming respin with dates (regXboi, 17:25:11)
    20. https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2014-June/001347.html this is the mail which I sent to project leads to start the hydrogen stable release artifact cutting process (this should help cdub some) (colindixon, 17:26:26)
    21. what if we have a regression raised on 7/15 date? (cdub, 17:28:17)
    22. edwarnicke's strawman is respin at 7/11 1:00pm CT, complete testing by 7/15 1:00 pm CT, and artifacts push decision at 7/17 TSC meeting (regXboi, 17:28:36)
    23. AGREED: edwarnicke's strawman proposal for dates (regXboi, 17:28:50)

  6. helium documentation issues (regXboi, 17:29:09)
    1. issue is lack of resources for working on documentation (regXboi, 17:29:59)
    2. documentation is looking for TSC to use the "bully pulpit" to encourage projects to help with documentation (regXboi, 17:30:22)
    3. regXboi notes that this applies to both Helium and stable/Hydrogen (regXboi, 17:30:43)
    4. request to add a Doc time slot to TSC call (regXboi, 17:31:29)
    5. question: who owns that agenda item? (regXboi, 17:31:46)
    6. answer: paulz (regXboi, 17:31:57)

  7. helium packaging (regXboi, 17:33:08)
    1. LuisGomez notes that we need release vehicles defined for integration team to plan properly, or if we are switching to Karaf, then testing strategy/plan needs to changes substantially and there needs to be tighter integration between projects and the system testing effort (phrobb, 17:35:02)
    2. also LuisGomez notes that with a real and solid system test environment spin/test of stable branch releases will go more smoothly (phrobb, 17:36:18)
    3. dmm notes that Helium really hinges on using Karaf or not. (phrobb, 17:36:49)
    4. regXboi notes that release vehicles are difficult to define… (phrobb, 17:38:23)
    5. mlemay notes that Karaf implementation has been coming along… some features such as NSF still needs work… (phrobb, 17:39:38)
    6. We have more than 9 services that think they independently own the flow tables. They can't run together no matter how flexible Karafe is. Love Karafe direction in general, Multiple flow writers still a problem... (dlenrow, 17:40:37)
    7. testing infrastructure with integration project is next to be done in matching potential features to component dependencies (phrobb, 17:40:38)
    8. mlemay notes that addition metadata in karaf needed that is ODL specific to call out the maturity of the feature and also group it by project. (phrobb, 17:41:36)
    9. allowing for different repos; stable, experimental, etc (phrobb, 17:41:56)
    10. this gives ability to build an ODL controller by defining the features that the user needs/wants (phrobb, 17:42:39)
    11. edwarnicke notes there are process/guideline work that needs to be done and agreed to across all projects to make this work properly (phrobb, 17:44:04)
    12. enumeration of thoughts on naming conventions we should work out: feature naming convention, feature artifactId naming convention, etc (edwarnicke, 17:45:43)
    13. component level definitions are still important, but feature packaging definitions for user-visible logical features (both dependencies and conflicts) will be very helpful (phrobb, 17:45:50)
    14. Q: what do we want to do as a TSC about release vehicles for Helium?… define them as we did with Hydrogen, or use an ala-carte method such as Karaf? (phrobb, 17:47:47)
    15. dlenrow notes that release vehicles require system test for those particular configs, and the Karaf method causes large combinatorial combinations of testing (phrobb, 17:49:01)
    16. regXboi notes that testing for hydrogen release vehicles allowed bugs to slip through and that the actual release vehicles were not well suited for wide arrays of users (phrobb, 17:50:13)
    17. edwarnicke notes that the goal of karaf is that we don't have to guess what users want. They can pick their own set of high-level features for their particular needs (phrobb, 17:51:19)
    18. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/CrossProject:Helium_Release_Vehicle_Brainstorming:Pure_Karaf - details on the Pure Karaf proposal (edwarnicke, 17:51:57)
    19. the testing mode would be to test the feature in isolation, then also test the feature with all other "compatible" features present (phrobb, 17:54:00)
    20. this is the only "sane" test method, as testing every possible permutation is not plausible (phrobb, 17:54:28)
    21. dmm notes that existing HW vendors allow feature enablement that can cause problems for the user. Karaf has great benefits but also has a cost (phrobb, 17:56:27)
    22. dmm asks the TSC, are we going to define Release Vehicles, or are we going to use Karaf? (phrobb, 17:57:21)
    23. regXboi notes that he prefers using Karaf because Release Vehicles disappoint some set of users (phrobb, 17:58:30)
    24. kwatsen notes that we could provide everything with a method to only load what the user wants…. mlemay notes that karaf provides exactly that (phrobb, 17:59:54)
    25. ACTION: mlemay to write up the packaging and selection modes for karaf (phrobb, 18:00:45)
    26. LuisGomez notes that testing helium using karaf we need a decision on karaf, then if karaf, we need to know "what are the features?", what are the dependencies and what is a conflict. We need new milestone attributes for those also (phrobb, 18:02:19)
    27. would like to apologize to the marketing guys for producing so much cool stuff thats hard to explain in a pretty picture :( (edwarnicke, 18:03:54)
    28. ACTION: Luis Gomez to respond to mlemay karaf outline on what testing and testing milestones are needed for the karaf (phrobb, 18:04:08)
    29. dmm opined that a discussion about karaf would strongly influence the diagram (edwarnicke, 18:04:46)


Meeting ended at 18:04:59 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. ChrisPriceAB to draft guidelines for how to get a committer promoted
  2. cdub to send mail with to hydrogen/stable projects about upcoming respin with dates
  3. mlemay to write up the packaging and selection modes for karaf
  4. Luis Gomez to respond to mlemay karaf outline on what testing and testing milestones are needed for the karaf


Action items, by person

  1. cdub
    1. cdub to send mail with to hydrogen/stable projects about upcoming respin with dates
  2. ChrisPriceAB
    1. ChrisPriceAB to draft guidelines for how to get a committer promoted
  3. mlemay
    1. mlemay to write up the packaging and selection modes for karaf
    2. Luis Gomez to respond to mlemay karaf outline on what testing and testing milestones are needed for the karaf


People present (lines said)

  1. regXboi (45)
  2. phrobb (39)
  3. edwarnicke (18)
  4. odl_meetbot (7)
  5. dlenrow (5)
  6. dmm (5)
  7. cdub (5)
  8. ChrisPriceAB (3)
  9. alagalah (2)
  10. icbts (1)
  11. kwatsen (1)
  12. colindixon (1)
  13. mlemay (1)
  14. drizzt_ (1)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.