08:10:14 <joehuang> #startmeeting multisite
08:10:14 <collabot`> Meeting started Thu Nov 24 08:10:14 2016 UTC.  The chair is joehuang. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:10:14 <collabot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
08:10:14 <collabot`> The meeting name has been set to 'multisite'
08:10:22 <joehuang> #topic rollcall
08:10:28 <joehuang> #info joehuang
08:10:50 <goutham> #info goutham
08:10:51 <SAshish> #info Ashish
08:11:23 <joehuang> #topic Nova api-version usage
08:11:26 <sorantis> #info dimitri
08:11:46 <joehuang> hello, Goutham, please, for the nova api-version topic
08:12:02 <goutham> i think we can use the latest version of nova-ai
08:12:04 <goutham> api**
08:12:20 <goutham> but the problem is that we have to create object twice
08:12:50 <joehuang> which object
08:12:53 <goutham> nova object
08:13:24 <joehuang> why creation twice
08:13:34 <SAshish> if we use directly the latest nova version, can we avoid creation of two nova objects?
08:13:38 <goutham> http://hastebin.com/harocapewu.rb something like this
08:14:00 <goutham> yea latest version can be used by hardcoding
08:14:28 <goutham> then we can avoid object creation twice
08:14:36 <joehuang> may we just use latest for the first calling
08:15:27 <joehuang> is there any issue if we use "latest"
08:15:33 <goutham> we can get the latest by either hardcoding or by creating a object and then obtain the latest
08:16:08 <joehuang> no need, only need to know whether there is side effect if we use "lastest" directly
08:16:27 <SAshish> I feel there is no harm in using latest version, as all the latest versions have backward compatibility
08:16:45 <joehuang> I think so
08:16:50 <goutham> hmm
08:17:11 <joehuang> Dimitri, your thought?
08:18:37 <joehuang> hello, Dimitri?
08:19:20 <sorantis> +1 for using the latest version
08:19:31 <sorantis> nothing prevents us from doing it
08:19:36 <joehuang> ok, let's use "latest"
08:19:54 <joehuang> #info use "latest" for the nova api version
08:20:02 <goutham> fine thanks
08:20:28 <joehuang> #topic Kingbird feature implementation
08:20:55 <joehuang> hello, last time, we discussed flavor, any questions on the host aggregate, Ashish?
08:23:32 <SAshish> I was working with goutham on client and api work. Could not look into that. currently we are working on finishing the keypair sync part
08:24:08 <joehuang> ok, it's ok to finish the current part first
08:24:37 <joehuang> any challenge on keypair sync?
08:24:38 <sorantis> I have a topic also
08:24:42 <joehuang> please
08:24:43 <sorantis> we can take it last
08:24:49 <joehuang> ok
08:25:06 <goutham> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/401230/
08:25:31 <goutham> dimitri can we have the resource name as quota_sync
08:25:38 <goutham> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/401230/2/kingbirdclient/api/v1/quota_manager.py@20
08:25:41 <goutham> in here
08:25:58 <joehuang> resource name should be the resource in the url
08:26:40 <goutham> then os-quota-sets ?
08:26:44 <sorantis> why the limitation?
08:27:17 <sorantis> should it be the same as in API url?
08:27:35 <joehuang> in OpenStackClient, the resource name is quota
08:28:40 <joehuang> CLI like "openstack quota set" or "openstack quota show"
08:29:00 <joehuang> to Dimitri, similar question
08:29:22 <joehuang> in url, it's "os-quota-sets"
08:30:12 <joehuang> hello, Goutham, will the resource name showed in command line?
08:30:13 <sorantis> yes, so for me it’s better to have quota
08:30:21 <sorantis> kingbird quota list
08:30:28 <joehuang> +1
08:30:29 <sorantis> kingbird quota show
08:30:30 <sorantis> etc
08:30:43 <joehuang> for cli, I like the style you mentioned
08:30:51 <goutham> no
08:30:58 <goutham> it will not be showed in the cli
08:31:39 <goutham> in cli we show kingbird quota-defaults (inspired from nova ) lists the default limits
08:31:40 <joehuang> what's the purpose for the resource name
08:32:02 <sorantis> this could be altered goutham
08:32:04 <joehuang> need to align with openstackclient, but not nova client
08:32:09 <sorantis> +1
08:32:34 <sorantis> pick the best from what’s there
08:32:48 <SAshish> but all the native clients have to be aligned right
08:32:55 <sorantis> openstack CLI has a better expression of commands
08:33:02 <SAshish> when we integrate kb cli with OSclient
08:33:06 <sorantis> they have to be aligned to openstack
08:33:09 <SAshish> then we must align with OSclient
08:33:20 <sorantis> yes
08:33:21 <joehuang> agree, community wide goal to evolve to openstackclient
08:33:28 <joehuang> even neutron is doing so
08:34:08 <joehuang> #info align the cli style with openstackclient
08:34:40 <joehuang> good, will review the patch offline
08:34:57 <joehuang> next topic?
08:35:00 <goutham> ohkk fine then i will look into that :) thanks
08:35:23 <joehuang> #topic Kingbird to be an OpenStack official project?
08:35:44 <sorantis> that’s an interesting idea
08:35:51 <sorantis> what do we need for that?
08:35:52 <joehuang> kingbird is mainly visible in opnfv
08:36:11 <joehuang> I'll list the requirements
08:36:25 <joehuang> for tricircle has just been accepted as openstack project
08:36:53 <sorantis> yes, and congratulations. it’s an important milestone for the project
08:37:12 <sorantis> I think I hvae already said that :)
08:37:25 <goutham> congratulations joe :)
08:37:46 <SAshish> once again congrats Joe
08:37:46 <joehuang> thank you all, the more the better, I am not boring about congratulations
08:37:51 <SAshish> party???????????????????????
08:37:54 <joehuang> :0)
08:38:15 <joehuang> sure, virtual party by container?
08:38:22 <SAshish> smarty
08:38:25 <SAshish> hahaha
08:38:36 <joehuang> the requirements is not very hard to achieve
08:38:44 <sorantis> do you have a list?
08:38:46 <joehuang> 1. mission alignment
08:38:55 <joehuang> yes, one monment
08:39:08 <joehuang> 2. follow four opens
08:39:30 <joehuang> there is no conflict on mission for kingbird with openstack
08:39:34 <joehuang> for 1 is ok
08:39:49 <joehuang> the requiremens here: http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
08:40:18 <joehuang> need to list evidence in the application for mission alignment and four opens
08:40:31 <joehuang> for example for tricircle application: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/
08:40:39 <SAshish> what is four opens?
08:40:57 <joehuang> 1. Open Source, no problem
08:41:08 <joehuang> 2. Open Community, no problem
08:41:22 <joehuang> 3. Open Development, no problem
08:41:28 <SAshish> got it
08:41:30 <SAshish> okays
08:41:34 <joehuang> 4. Open Design, no problem
08:41:42 <joehuang> we have four opens
08:41:58 <joehuang> the only issue is that all these activies are in opnfv
08:41:58 <sorantis> interesting
08:42:21 <sorantis> perhaps we could play on the fact that the project is from OPNFV
08:42:23 <joehuang> I am not sure whether OpenStack TCs will recognize our four opens in opnfv
08:42:34 <sorantis> and this could be a step towards bringing the communities closer
08:42:53 <joehuang> I would suggest Dimitri to work as the PTL and submit the application
08:43:02 <joehuang> for kingbird
08:43:23 <SAshish> +1
08:43:30 <goutham> +1
08:43:36 <sorantis> it’s worth a try
08:43:40 <joehuang> we have to list all evidence on the application
08:43:57 <sorantis> BUT :) this brings me to the topic I wanted to raise
08:44:03 <joehuang> if openstack want us move to openstack community wide visibility, then we can try
08:44:24 <sorantis> please provide the links above in the meeting minutes
08:44:27 <joehuang> to Sorantis, which one
08:44:28 <sorantis> I’ll have a look
08:44:32 <joehuang> yes
08:44:40 <sorantis> #topic multisite build system
08:44:43 <joehuang> we have all meeting links here
08:45:05 <SAshish> #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
08:45:30 <joehuang> #link: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Multisite
08:45:33 <sorantis> as you already know, I’ve taken on refactoring our build system
08:45:43 <joehuang> yes
08:45:51 <sorantis> we saw a proposal two weeks ago and I’ve made first commit
08:46:22 <sorantis> I must admit that the work is progressing slow, due to other responsibilities, but nevertheless, there are some news
08:46:32 <joehuang> cool!
08:46:54 <sorantis> I want to stress that I get a lot of help from Fatih, so his role is very important, if not critical
08:47:22 <joehuang> many thanks to Faith
08:47:33 <sorantis> anyway, Fatih got us a second node, so now we can have a truly multisite deployment
08:47:37 <SAshish> thanks Fatih
08:47:45 <joehuang> really good news!
08:48:12 <joehuang> #info so now we can have a truly multisite deployment
08:48:13 <sorantis> he’s currently in installing the new node with Fuel 10. There are some challanges, but we’ll get there
08:48:30 <sorantis> this also means that we will have to decomission our current node and reinstall it
08:48:53 <joehuang> you have done great job
08:49:05 <sorantis> this is where our jobs will stop working for some time, until I can finalize the scripts that centralize this goddamn Keystone
08:49:53 <sorantis> this is not a one day job, and can stretch over a couple of weeks
08:50:09 <joehuang> It worth going
08:50:11 <sorantis> just want to let you know, that our build system is undergoing a big change
08:50:38 <sorantis> we will need someone who can look after the functest part
08:50:44 <sorantis> I simplt cannot take this one
08:51:19 <joehuang> there is some issue in Functest, for a lot of dependency conclict
08:51:32 <joehuang> not only kingbird, but also other projects
08:51:42 <SAshish> in last week's meeting Joe told he would look into it
08:52:31 <joehuang> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/OpenStack+python+clients
08:52:38 <joehuang> I had looked into
08:53:16 <joehuang> and Helen Yao is trying to address the dependency conflict using venv
08:53:28 <joehuang> but I am not sure she will succeed
08:53:59 <joehuang> may be at last Functest has to evove to multiple Functest container
08:54:07 <joehuang> but not install all in one container
08:55:38 <sorantis> yes, that sounds better
08:56:14 <joehuang> need to work close with Functest team to address the dependency conflict( that's the mission of container...)
08:56:46 <joehuang> other topics?
08:56:54 <sorantis> I’m done
08:57:17 <SAshish> nothing for now
08:57:26 <goutham> i have one?
08:57:59 <goutham> now that i have to refractor the client part i will also include osprofiler
08:58:23 <goutham> in that which i have removed previously
08:58:28 <joehuang> good
08:58:34 <sorantis> +1
08:58:54 <SAshish> +1
08:59:12 <goutham> thank you :)
08:59:27 <joehuang> time is up, thank you for attending the meeting
08:59:41 <SAshish> Thanks, Good bye
08:59:42 <joehuang> #endmeeting