15:30:35 <trinaths> #startmeeting OVN4NFV Weekly Meeting
15:30:35 <collabot> Meeting started Tue Aug 21 15:30:35 2018 UTC.  The chair is trinaths. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:30:35 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:30:35 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'ovn4nfv_weekly_meeting'
15:32:57 <trinaths> #link Agenda - https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=OV&title=Meeting+Agenda
15:39:09 <Srini> Hi Trinath, Srini here.
15:41:08 <trinaths> Srini: Hi.
15:41:31 <trinaths> Srini: today I attended the weekly OPNFV release meeting call
15:41:36 <Srini> I could not join
15:41:42 <Srini> I saw that email very late.
15:41:49 <Srini> But, in any case I had a conflict.
15:42:10 <trinaths> and discussed the new work
15:42:51 <Srini> Okay. What is the reaction?
15:43:05 <trinaths> Bin said to present the new proposal in tomorrow architecture meeting
15:43:30 <trinaths> Srini:  They say have a fork ovn repo is not a good idea and will attract anger from ovn community.
15:44:01 <trinaths> currently only 8 patches per week are getting merged into ovn
15:44:30 <trinaths> I said, this work can add more scenarios on k8s edge usecases to opnfv.
15:45:02 <trinaths> but the tech team is worries on how strong the patches in forked repo be pushed to master branch ?
15:45:38 <trinaths> Bin added, please respond to opnfv-tech-discuss with presentation and ideas to detail this new proposal
15:46:15 <Srini> Oh. I see. Our intention is to push the changes to upstream OVN. But concern is that whether NFV changes would be accepted in OVN main branch soon.
15:46:35 <Srini> I will
15:46:39 <trinaths> if you have the new proposal presentation, we can present tomorrow at Bin meeting
15:47:24 <trinaths> trevor commented that if ovn changes are not merged to master branch then there is no meaning of this fork branch activity
15:48:17 <trinaths> its a major concern mcdavid, tbramwell and bin raised in today meeting
15:48:30 <trinaths> so, how to move on this ?
15:48:50 <Srini> Are they okay to have forked branch for some time and then move to master branch slowly?
15:50:07 <Srini> I am travelling tomorrow. Next week would be good.
15:50:40 <trinaths> yes. but they want to know how the activity is being planned. as they commented " when you fork ovn repo its a dead repo where you guys make changes to it. but in mean time the main branch gets bugs/sceurity and code fixes. How will you handle it? also, how far ovn community can get your changes to master?"
15:51:19 <trinaths> the proposal presentation needs this concern addressed.
15:51:22 <trinaths> i think
15:52:22 <Srini> That is true in general for any forked branch.  You mentioned that you are using some forked branch of OVN, right? How are the concerns put to rest there?
15:52:31 <trinaths> since, you are travelling, can you update Bin on this and propose a date for this dicussion
15:54:05 <Srini> Yes. Sent the email.
15:54:10 <trinaths> ok. the forked branch I was using for is maintained external to opnfv repos. so for the PoC and for Scenario its feasible to run a scenario. But in our case, opnfv repo is going to maintain a forked repo. which opnfv guy believe not a proper way.
15:55:22 <trinaths> comments ?
15:55:25 <Srini> So, the concern is to maintenance when OPNFV forks it. But if it is forked elsewhere and only scenario is defined, then is it okay?
15:56:21 <trinaths> yes. As I was working on now.
15:59:38 <trinaths> ok. I have my team on Eid holiday.
15:59:45 <Srini> Ok
16:00:19 <trinaths> Can we conclude the meeting. lets propose a date for new proposal presentation.
16:00:21 <Srini> Let me think about it on whether to create a fork in github itself.
16:00:43 <Srini> I will make a proposal and see how it goes.
16:00:50 <Srini> Thanks Trinath.
16:00:55 <Srini> Bye for now then.
16:01:02 <trinaths> ok.
16:01:04 <trinaths> thanks srini
16:01:08 <trinaths> bye
16:01:12 <trinaths> #endmeeting