13:59:54 <[1]JonasB> #startmeeting Fuel OPNFV meeting 13:59:54 Meeting started Thu Jun 4 13:59:54 2015 UTC. The chair is [1]JonasB. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:59:54 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:59:54 The meeting name has been set to 'fuel_opnfv_meeting' 14:00:00 #info Szilard Cserey 14:00:03 #info Daniel Smith 14:00:18 <[1]JonasB> #info JonasBjurel 14:01:14 #info Stefan Berg 14:04:20 <[1]JonasB> #info Before we start I want to thank everyone for a fanastic work done for the Arno release! 14:05:02 <[1]JonasB> #info status is that we have cut the Arno branch and will release during the day. 14:05:28 <[1]JonasB> So should we move on to branching strategy 14:05:52 <[1]JonasB> #Topic Branching strategy 14:06:33 <[1]JonasB> So my proposal is that we immediaty start the R2 work on the master branch 14:06:49 question - 14:06:58 if we work on R2 on master - what about SR1 patches / ec 14:07:05 <[1]JonasB> And that Szilard continue on the Arno maintenance branch 14:07:09 will that be done on "stable" or a different branch? 14:07:12 There's a separate branch now for Arno. 14:07:14 got it 14:07:16 stable/arno 14:07:25 * ChrisPriceAB wonders if we still plan to move to a fuel repo 14:07:48 ok.. but if we modify the stable branch wont the nightly builds be affected - or thta is the idea - the ISO is frozen and stable continues ? 14:07:54 for patches, etc 14:07:57 * ChrisPriceAB thinks that might create a pretty clean distinguisher 14:08:05 <[1]JonasB> Chris, think we continue on genesis or? 14:08:31 The current proposal for genesis is that it no longer hosts deploy code 14:08:37 post Arno 14:08:40 <[1]JonasB> Nightlys run of master so that will stop building 14:09:05 should maintenance be left in genesis repo 14:09:13 * ChrisPriceAB needs to clarify, common modules would live in genesis 14:09:15 or move to fuel? 14:09:27 maintenance would have to stay of course 14:09:35 ok 14:09:39 <[1]JonasB> Chris, but does the place matter for this discussion? 14:09:53 then we have ci on both branches 14:09:57 * lmcdasm is confused - do we have a document on the branching proposel to look at so i can visualize the trees / strategy? 14:09:58 No, not really. :) but it creates practical realities 14:10:10 no matter which repo we're in 14:10:13 So where is this repo reordering discussion taking place? 14:10:26 it will take place post Arno in the BGS team. 14:10:27 * lmcdasm agrees - i didnt see / hear this proposal 14:11:19 <[1]JonasB> So my proposal as a generic one is that the progress towards SR1 and R2 happends on the master 14:11:48 <[1]JonasB> and we rebase the Arno maintenance branch when were aproaching SR1 14:12:01 <[1]JonasB> With one exemption 14:12:06 by "maintenance" you mean "stable/arno"? 14:12:49 <[1]JonasB> Szilard works out of the maintenance branch because he has stuff ready and want to test it without being disturbed by broken commits. 14:13:00 <[1]JonasB> Stable/arno yes 14:13:08 Seems like a good plan. 14:13:26 ok - sorry if im dumb.. but i need to udnestand 14:13:30 if we are working on stable/arno 14:13:32 and something is wrong 14:13:37 and people download the genesis repo 14:13:41 wont their build system be impacted? 14:13:48 or did i miss something there? 14:13:57 <[1]JonasB> but they need to check out the tag 14:14:10 <[1]JonasB> arno.2015.1.0 14:14:27 <[1]JonasB> anything non tagged is unknown 14:14:34 ahh.. ok.. i see .. do when epople want the build system release at Arno - they do a git clone with that tag 14:14:36 Well, depends in what context they are working. For maintenance of arno they simply checkout that branch... and Jonas is typing quicker than me. 14:14:58 and if they dont specify a tag, then they get whatever is in "master of stable/arno" at that point 14:15:14 * lmcdasm Dan feels dumb for asking simpleton questions :P 14:15:17 <[1]JonasB> Exactly 14:15:30 we should document this (so i can remember if for not other reson) 14:15:31 quick question: will montreal lab be used for R2 and SR(s) work and CI or LF? 14:15:41 * lmcdasm would prefer Montreal lab 14:15:50 Its a topic for another meeting I guess, but I would still like to know more about the driving force for a repo reordering. Not saying that it doesn't make sense. 14:16:41 I assume we would look at a build system using git submodules in that case, which imho can be an unnecessary complication. 14:16:41 <[1]JonasB> Szilard wants to try out LF 14:16:56 ok 14:16:56 since a) Szi already has stuff going on there, and B) we are overloading the LF guys with two platforms and 6:2 ratio of requests (at minimum).. 14:17:01 hmm.. okies... 14:17:22 we'll need to setup jobs for stable/arno now 14:17:23 I'm actually planning to start using LF from Tuesday next week 14:17:23 i would suggest Szi that you call a meeting with LF first to have the networks sorted out prior to starting 14:17:30 thats why I asked 14:17:31 caues you are going to have problems 14:17:56 unless you use the exact config set that CI pipeline has been using 14:17:56 aha, which guys should I contact ? 14:18:00 * stefan_berg nods, the LF network setup is "interesting". 14:18:06 well.. this is what i mean - 14:18:24 Raymond said there is a retrospective.. but aric and Peter are working as hard as they can 14:18:32 <[1]JonasB> But it should in theory work in the same way as Stefans proto 14:18:38 but the dependancy and networking setup - outlined by Colin b ack in March - has a problem 14:18:45 hehe... yes.. in theroy 14:18:52 <[1]JonasB> :-) 14:18:59 but we know we still have to fix the VXLAN tunnels at some point and i think that needs to eb sorted 14:19:09 otherwise we are still not targetting the SUT that Chris has outlined 14:19:24 <[1]JonasB> lmcdasm: agree 14:19:27 so perhaps - before we continue - we can either sort out that Hardware and a support method so we arent locksteipping 14:19:37 Szilard, for now you and I can cook something up. I have a workaround for the strange tagging on vlan 1 for now, so that will not be visible for the Fuel VM. 14:19:40 and get either - A) some comptenence to do the switching stuff ourselves 14:19:49 or b) setup a timetable so its not so "roughshod" on the LF guys 14:20:09 ok Stefan :) 14:20:27 <[1]JonasB> lmcdasm: Agree, maybe a meeting with Peter and Aric to sort WOW 14:20:35 my concerns is that the "special stuff" for LF doesnt have to exist elsewhere, so we will need to do it on Motnreal or some other place with a more "Generic" setup 14:20:43 szilard: Let's share a tmux/screen connection to the LF pod1 jumphost and I can give you a quick tour. 14:20:45 that matches our Reference Architecuter since LF does not 14:20:58 * lmcdasm wants to be shown from Herr Berg as well ;P 14:21:23 lmcdasm: A group tour it is then! :) 14:21:39 good, thanks Stefan ! 14:21:50 since im pretty convinced (watching VXLAN packets go out tagged with 1) that this is the reason the tunnnels are not coming up 14:21:52 when right after this meeting ? 14:22:04 <[1]JonasB> So back to the Branching strategy, do we agree in principle? 14:22:20 well, I agree :) 14:22:28 I would prefer Monday if possible though, I would like to set something up tomorrow on an internal host before I loose it. But if you need to get started that takes precedence, Szilard. 14:22:32 #agreed - in principle - would like to see a diagram so its more clear for everyone (and new people who will join -0 Ulf, etc) 14:22:40 today is tough for me - MOnday is better 14:22:41 :) 14:23:13 can we do it Tuesday, Monday I must got to a conference 14:23:28 send a meeting req out and propose a time that works 14:23:30 <[1]JonasB> #info In general work towards SRs and R2 happens in the master branch and we rebase the stable/arno when were progressing the SR releases 14:23:31 and ill accomodate 14:23:32 thanks 14:24:06 lmcdasm: In general I think repo structures, branching strategies, a WoW on submodules etc would be great to have on a Wiki once us tech guys agree ("we" as in Fuel + Foreman of course). 14:24:21 <[1]JonasB> #info Exemption, Szilard will work on the stable/arno not to be disturbed by broken commits 14:24:51 <[1]JonasB> Lets go to szilards deploy tool 14:25:06 <[1]JonasB> #topic Deployment tool 14:25:06 Looks like 112 is stuck in the same place... 14:25:31 <[1]JonasB> Zci How is it going in mtrl 14:25:40 dneary: ChrisPriceAB is on #opnfv-octopus channel 14:25:44 <[1]JonasB> Zsilard How is it going in mtrl 14:25:58 looking for you and trozet 14:27:45 <[1]JonasB> Did szilard leave? 14:27:53 no sorry I'm here 14:27:59 <[1]JonasB> Ha! 14:28:04 I am deploying 14:28:59 and trying to display the ODL GUI somehow 14:29:22 <[1]JonasB> Szilard: So you want to move to LF 14:29:25 I am deploying on 6 blades 3 compute 3 controller 14:29:30 <[1]JonasB> on tue 14:29:36 not yet, yes on Tuesday 14:30:13 because I'm preparing for a demo that will be held on monday at the Openstack CEE 14:30:21 <[1]JonasB> That should be fine, but as said lets do it together so we can use the competence already gained 14:30:36 sure 14:30:46 hey Szi.. ping me and i can show you some tricks 14:30:50 for the ODL gui and such 14:31:04 if you are having issue getting that thing up - it can be tricky sometimes 14:31:05 thank Daniel, that is cool, I really need that now 14:31:15 ok.. let do it today then after your deploy is there 14:31:17 <[1]JonasB> #info Szilard will go on LF on Tue with the rebased auto deployer 14:31:31 (if you have time that is :P). 14:31:34 <[1]JonasB> #info Stefan and Daniel will be at help 14:31:40 of course I have time :) 14:31:54 thanks guys :) 14:32:16 Of course, just call anytime you need help! 14:32:19 sorry - one last question - aare you doing full vxlan or just showing the ODL is up and ready? 14:32:31 ^^ what Herr_berg said! 14:32:43 just the ODL 14:32:57 <[1]JonasB> Should we have a meeting with LF to sort out support WOW or should that be done by genesis? 14:34:26 I think it's a good idea to have a separate meeting with LF 14:34:46 Yes, I think so too. 14:35:14 <[1]JonasB> So lets set up something with them next week - who? 14:35:15 We seem to be hit differently (Fuel and Foreman that is) by the nw setup. 14:35:42 With who on the LF side, or who from us? :) 14:35:57 <[1]JonasB> Who too arrange, I can do it 14:36:51 I'm in, have no idea who to hook up with on the LF side though. 14:37:09 wasn't it Konstantin? 14:37:09 Quick brainstorm on the topics to bring up? 14:37:16 and Aric 14:37:20 * lmcdasm proposes the first conversation be about just WoW - and how to communicate, how to address issues in a formal / traceable way 14:37:31 * lmcdasm then we have a second discussion about networking needs.. 14:37:35 lmcdasm: Sounds wise. 14:37:48 <[1]JonasB> #agree Jonas will arange a meeting with LF to discuss lab support 14:37:52 since i dont want to see the two conversations merged - first lets set the framework 14:38:01 then use that framework to get what we need Network wise done 14:38:35 <[1]JonasB> Aric and Konstantin I think should be fine 14:38:44 Does anyone else have some thoughts on how we address the delta between LF CI pipeline (i.e Stefans hack for the UCS fabric) vs our published Reference Archittecture? 14:38:49 is documentation enough - ? 14:39:01 * lmcdasm things Raymong Paik shouold be in that discussion as well 14:39:28 imo send the meeting request to Infra-steering@lists.opnfv.org 14:39:44 Eliminating the delta...? 14:39:48 we cannot 14:40:00 eleminate the delta.. since its intrisinc to the UCS fabric 14:40:01 <[1]JonasB> aric: good proposal 14:40:09 or do you mean - that we change our reference arch? 14:40:39 so that we include a mention of "possible fabric taggin" (which might be worthwhile since the IBM blade centre the guys out in Telstra / Aussieland have similar issues 14:40:40 OK, so a patch to UCS to come back on track is a no go? 14:40:57 <[1]JonasB> #agree Jonas will arange a meeting with Infra-steering@lists.opnfv.org 14:41:00 well.. thats what im getting at really 14:41:12 if we patch our stuff to accomodate a single HW type and that is what we are testing 14:41:23 then we really are blind to using our "ref arch" 14:41:34 now we "know" (cause we are doing the work).. but how will anyone else? 14:41:47 <[1]JonasB> We need to come back to the stated ref arch. 14:41:55 * fdegir foreman is done - we're good to go 14:42:17 <[1]JonasB> fdegir - good news 14:42:21 Yep. The there needs to be an "HW instantiation framework"... which imho would be messy. 14:46:23 <[1]JonasB> #topic Meeting series going forward 14:48:03 <[1]JonasB> I propose to only have one meeting a week on Thursdays, and a informal rendevouz on Tue - what about that? 14:48:56 Sounds good. 14:49:12 me too 14:50:14 <[1]JonasB> #info going forward we will have fuel meeting on Thursdays, and a informal rendevouzs on Tuesdays 14:50:31 <[1]JonasB> Anything more for today? 14:51:25 * stefan_berg is waiting for the countdown... 14:51:41 :) 14:52:18 <[1]JonasB> 321 14:52:30 <[1]JonasB> #endmeeting