Members present: Animesh, topcloud, chipc, vogxn, jzb, sangeetha, Rayees, __Parth__, aprateek, sudhap, Chandan, topcloud2, ke4qqq
---------------- Meeting summary: ---------------- 1. Preface 2. Active Feature Release: Overall Status a. Animesh to start a discussion on the list about baremetal being postponed to 4.2 (chipc, 2) b. topcloud to investigate turning off the UI for baremetal (chipc, 2) 3. Active Feature Release: QA a. https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22VMSnapshot%22 (jzb, 3) b. chipc to review new features and improvements with 4.1 in the fix version to ensure accuracy (chipc, 3) 4. Active Feature Release: Docs Status a. jzb propose READMEs for new features, major merges, etc. (jzb, 4) 5. Active Bug-Fix Release 6. Master Branch a. chipc to raise the question of new release management volunteers for our next releases (chipc, 6) 7. Infra 8. others? -------- Actions: -------- - Animesh to start a discussion on the list about baremetal being postponed to 4.2 (chipc, 17:14:08) - topcloud to investigate turning off the UI for baremetal (chipc, 17:14:28) - chipc to review new features and improvements with 4.1 in the fix version to ensure accuracy (chipc, 17:31:18) - jzb propose READMEs for new features, major merges, etc. (jzb, 17:41:35) - chipc to raise the question of new release management volunteers for our next releases (chipc, 17:54:05) IRC log follows: # 1. Preface # # 2. Active Feature Release: Overall Status # 17:05:58 [chipc]: well then - let's get started 17:05:58 [jzb]: let's start with the overall status of 4.1.0 17:06:05 [chipc]: so obviously we have Friday as our target for a first RC 17:06:50 [chipc]: however, with 7 blockers, 9 criticals (not to mention 58 major) bugs open, I'm just going to raise the point that I won't do the RC until those numbers are down 17:07:07 [chipc]: at least the blockers need to be addressed, and the crits need to be reduced 17:07:15 [chipc]: I've been accepting fixes as fast as I can (usually only a half day delay) 17:07:28 [chipc]: I'm also concerned that fixes are going in for master, that may need to also come into 4.1. I'll reiterate the request to please send me a notification of some sort to pull it over. 17:07:50 [jzb]: chipc: FWIW one of the blockers is to fix documentation with the proper links once we have the graduation stuff sorted out 17:07:58 [chipc]: true 17:08:07 [jzb]: chipc: I tagged it as a blocker because we need to make sure it's addressed, but obviously shouldn't be a major hurdle. 17:08:43 [jzb]: chipc: are there any blockers that haven't been updated? 17:08:50 [chipc]: one specific item - we have several baremetal issues outstanding, and with frank away nobody's pickig them up 17:08:50 [jzb]: e.g. that we're unsure are being addressed at all? 17:09:14 [chipc]: it appears that most blockers / crits are at least being looked at and worked on - with the unfortunate exception of the baremetal stuff 17:09:50 [Animesh]: yes baremetal is open unfortuantely 17:10:13 [chipc]: I believe that we are going to have to make a call: either someone steps up to work on baremetal, or we agree as a community to pull that "functionality" from the release (i.e.: make it "experimental") 17:10:28 [Animesh]: should we mark it as not available for 4.1 and push it to 4.2. 17:10:35 [ke4qqq]: ACTION wishes we could turn it off 17:10:50 [chipc]: Animesh: that needs to be an on-list decision 17:10:58 [ke4qqq]: ACTION actually wishes we knew it didn't work at merge - points to deficits in our testing of merges 17:11:00 [chipc]: it's unfortunate that nobody can look at it though 17:11:13 [jzb]: does it impede anything if it's left in as-is? 17:11:20 [chipc]: ke4qqq: +1 17:11:20 [jzb]: or just that it doesn't work? 17:11:21 [topcloud2]: we can turn it off. Frank is offline unfortunately 17:11:35 [chipc]: topcloud2: how would we turn it off? 17:11:45 [chipc]: (tenically, not documentation-wise 17:12:05 [__Parth__]: +1 jzb .. if doesnt impede.. leave it as is 17:12:28 [topcloud2]: from API perspective we can. I have to see about ui 17:12:53 [jzb]: topcloud2: what's exposed in the UI? 17:12:58 [chipc]: so who wants to take the action of proposing (1) to disable it and (2) the approach to the same? 17:13:00 [sangeetha]: Had a question regarding AWS Regions feature . UI for this feature has not made to 4.1 . 17:13:12 [jzb]: topcloud2: I'd -1 anything that ships a "feature" in the UI that doesn't work. 17:13:12 [Animesh]: jzb: baremetal should not impede any other functionality in CloudStack 17:13:12 [chipc]: sangeetha: just a sec 17:13:43 [Animesh]: I can take the action item for baremetal 17:13:43 [chipc]: Animesh: but if it's in the UI and is busted, then I'm against that being released 17:13:50 [topcloud2]: jzb: agreed. I need to look in it 17:14:05 [jzb]: topcloud2: thanks 17:14:08 [chipc]: #action Animesh to start a discussion on the list about baremetal being postponed to 4.2 17:14:28 [chipc]: #action topcloud to investigate turning off the UI for baremetal 17:14:35 [jzb]: thx chipc 17:14:43 [chipc]: can we move to sangeetha's question now? 17:15:00 [sangeetha]: Had a question regarding AWS Regions feature . UI for this feature has not made to 4.1 . 17:15:06 [chipc]: sangeetha: what's the question? 17:16:13 [sangeetha]: Should the document make a note of this ? Can this feature be complete with out UI ? 17:16:37 [jzb]: sangeetha: does it cause any problems if it's not exposed via the UI? 17:16:58 [chipc]: sangeetha: +1 to the docs being written with the huge disclaimer about it being API only 17:17:05 [ke4qqq]: ACTION doesn't think it's a problem provided it works via API 17:17:13 [jzb]: it'd be better if it was visible in the UI, but if it's there but not exposed - but doesn't break existing functionality - I think it's OK. 17:17:20 [sangeetha]: No problem as such ..But Single Sign on feature that allows users to move between reagions will not be avaialable 17:17:20 [chipc]: jzb: the implementation is useful even without the UI 17:17:35 [topcloud2]: the main problem is the end user can not switch regions easily 17:17:43 [sangeetha]: yes 17:17:50 [jzb]: chipc: I'd agree. I'm just wondering if there's any oddities caused by turning it on, but not being in the UI 17:17:50 [chipc]: jzb: we didn't allow the UI into the release, because it was proposed for merge very late after feature freeze 17:17:58 [ke4qqq]: ahhhhh the UI isn't region-enabled 17:18:21 [ke4qqq]: I completely misunderstood what sangeetha originally said 17:18:30 [chipc]: sangeetha: did you test the UI with regions enabled at the API layer? 17:18:59 [sangeetha]: I am testing this feature using API calls ... 17:19:34 [jzb]: sangeetha: if it's enabled and I'm looking at the UI - are there any problems? 17:19:34 [chipc]: hmm, would you mind doing a test of the UI to see if we have any blockers *when regions are enabled* 17:19:41 [sangeetha]: There are few blockers logged but in general I am able to test this feature 17:19:48 [chipc]: not that it will be reflected in the UI, but that the UI doesn't break? 17:19:50 [sangeetha]: and all the newly introduced resgions realted API calls 17:20:17 [sangeetha]: Ui doesnt break 17:20:25 [ke4qqq]: chipc: the problem is that user in regionA can't easily log into regionB's mgmt server iiuc. 17:20:27 [jzb]: excellent 17:20:33 [sangeetha]: It si simply not aware of other regions 17:20:40 [jzb]: chipc: we might want to call that out in RC testing notes 17:20:41 [chipc]: ke4qqq: I understand that part, absoutely 17:20:55 [topcloud2]: chip: it shouldn't be.the you remains intra region even with region on 17:21:05 [topcloud2]: ui 17:21:18 [chipc]: ok, so we're good then 17:21:55 [chipc]: cool. Any other overall comments on the release? should we move to the QA specific portion of the agenda? 17:21:55 [sudhap]: chipc: These two blockers must be fixed for 4.1 before we cut RC https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1694 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1719 17:22:10 [chipc]: sudhap: yes 17:22:18 [sudhap]: Hope we are done with the AWS topic - just want to bring up must fix blockers 17:22:35 [sudhap]: Upgrade testing is going on 17:22:41 [sangeetha]: I am done with AWS regions topic 17:22:49 [chipc]: sudhap: just a sec 17:22:58 [sudhap]: chipc: ok 17:22:59 [chipc]: jzb: switch /topic now? # 3. Active Feature Release: QA # 17:23:26 [jzb]: chipc: thx 17:23:26 [chipc]: sudhap: ready now - sorry 17:23:33 [chipc]: QA? 17:23:49 [sudhap]: Ok - I cleaned up the feature list and defect list ( blockers and critical ) 17:23:56 [sudhap]: daily triaging defect list 17:24:03 [sudhap]: but still 17 remain 17:24:06 [sudhap]: as of today 17:24:33 [Chandan]: 5 of the bugs that i filed agains VMSnapshot feature are unassigned 17:24:48 [Chandan]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22VMSnapshot%22 17:25:03 [jzb]: #link https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22VMSnapshot%22 17:25:04 [Chandan]: any information pertaiing to that? 17:25:44 [chipc]: well, all of those are for 4.2 right? we're talking about 4.1 right now 17:25:58 [ke4qqq]: Chandan: do those also affect 4.1? 17:26:11 [chipc]: ke4qqq: that feature is not in 4.1 17:26:41 [ke4qqq]: ahhh - not volume snapshots - /ignore me. 17:26:43 [Chandan]: I am sorry . You are correct 17:26:56 [chipc]: Chandan: no worries! 17:27:04 [Chandan]: this feature is in not in 4.1 17:27:26 [Chandan]: it is not in 4.1 17:27:26 [chipc]: sudhap: I guess that's it... we are where we are with bugs... we need them fixed, and we need baremetal to be decided on 17:27:33 [jzb]: Chandan: I'm happier that you had the wrong release than if we had 5 major issues that are unassigned for 5.1 17:27:33 [sudhap]: ok 17:27:35 [jzb]: er, 4.1 17:27:56 [jzb]: any other QA stuff? 17:28:03 [sudhap]: I will review remaining feature list which are in resolved state 17:28:05 [sudhap]: automation is running except KVM 17:28:11 [sudhap]: rayees is on the call 17:28:11 [sangeetha]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1740 - This is new blocker bug that is unassigned 17:28:33 [sudhap]: Xen and VMware automation is being run but KVM got blocked 17:28:36 [sudhap]: that is fixed yesterday 17:28:47 [sudhap]: we will try to finish regression before 22nd 17:29:10 [Rayees]: KVM defect 1469 fixed, i will test today 17:29:25 [sudhap]: there are some features in "In progress " will those be moved out 17:30:28 [chipc]: sudhap: want me to go through them? 17:30:49 [sudhap]: chipc: Yes please if you can. Trying to go through new and improvement list and would like to close them by 22nd as QA tasks are pending for some 17:30:57 [chipc]: ok, thx 17:31:18 [chipc]: #action chipc to review new features and improvements with 4.1 in the fix version to ensure accuracy 17:32:03 [sudhap]: Sangeetha: 1740 is assigned to Kaushik 17:32:18 [sudhap]: fix version is not set and I set it now 17:32:50 [sangeetha]: I see it now assigned now..Thanks 17:32:56 [jzb]: Anything else on QA? # 4. Active Feature Release: Docs Status # 17:33:30 [jzb]: let's move on to docs 17:34:05 [jzb]: we have 16 active issues against docs in 4.1.0 17:34:45 [jzb]: Only one is unassigned, and only two have not been updated since early March 17:34:53 [chipc]: jzb: looking good! 17:35:00 [jzb]: I'm going to poke the owners of any tickets who haven't updated their tickets in the last two weeks 17:35:20 [sangeetha]: Wanted to know where we will want to host the ipv6 specific templates ? 17:35:28 [jzb]: I think we'll be good by end of week. 17:35:42 [jzb]: what's disappointing about this cycle is that we've really let the translators down 17:36:05 [jzb]: there's still going to be a fair amount of churn that may not be translated in time. I'm bummed about that. 17:36:05 [chipc]: jzb: we're new at this time-based release thing 17:36:13 [jzb]: so it's something to look at for 4.2.0 17:36:13 [chipc]: +1 17:36:28 [jzb]: that's all I've got - anyone else have something on docs? 17:36:30 [ke4qqq]: jzb: we likely need a longer window - which means docs and features need to be done in parallel 17:36:58 [jzb]: ke4qqq: well, it's hard to document something that's not finished :-) 17:37:13 [jzb]: what might help is making at least bare-bones docs a requirement for commits 17:37:14 [chipc]: jzb: we could make docs a requirement for feature merge 17:37:23 [chipc]: jynx 17:37:27 [jzb]: doesn't need to be much - but something that people who're writing up docs can work from. 17:37:57 [jzb]: and with that... 17:37:58 [topcloud]: we should require api docs to be a requirement. ui docs is difficult for developers to do. 17:38:12 [jzb]: topcloud: difficult how? 17:38:37 [topcloud]: for me. it's difficult. 17:38:43 [jzb]: topcloud: I'm not asking for developers to hand over all the screenshots etc. 17:38:50 [topcloud]: oh ok. 17:38:51 [jzb]: a simple list of bullet points would be hunkydory 17:38:58 [topcloud]: that's easily doable. 17:39:05 [ke4qqq]: topcloud: I don't need instructions - I need to know why,who,what,etc... 17:39:05 [chipc]: topcloud: docs folks can collaborate on a branch just like devs 17:39:05 [topcloud]: that's almost like writing a readme. 17:39:20 [jzb]: topcloud: that'd be excellent 17:39:28 [topcloud]: chipc: i think the problem with that is docs guys may not get to it. 17:39:30 [topcloud]: and the branch gets held up. 17:39:50 [jzb]: clearly we also need to work on building up our documentation team 17:39:52 [chipc]: topcloud: but is a feature complete without any docs? that's the question 17:40:13 [topcloud]: and devs have to keep merging and merging...seems like a lot of wasted time. 17:40:13 [chipc]: jzb: +1 - aren't you already going to that OSS docs conference to recruit? 17:40:28 [jzb]: chipc: I hope so. 17:40:35 [topcloud]: I can agree to jzb's point. they should at least write a readme about their feature and how to use it. 17:40:45 [jzb]: awesome 17:40:50 [topcloud]: so that a docs person know what they're actually looking at when documenting. 17:40:50 [jzb]: I can bring that up on the list 17:41:06 [jzb]: I'll give a sample of what would be helpful, and I'll pull in Jessica and Radhika on that. 17:41:13 [ke4qqq]: topcloud: I'd be ok with it being feature complete with readme style of docs. 17:41:34 [ke4qqq]: prettier stuff shouldn't hold folks up 17:41:35 [jzb]: #action jzb propose READMEs for new features, major merges, etc. 17:41:56 [chipc]: ACTION notes that we are a bit off topic from a release specific discussion 17:42:05 [jzb]: yeah, no - making it pretty, putting it into Publican, taking screenshots, and finding the best way to explain it is up to docs 17:42:18 [jzb]: chipc: indeed. Thanks 17:42:18 [jzb]: Let's move on 17:42:33 [jzb]: #Active Feature Release: Additional Issues? 17:42:41 [chipc]: sangeetha: you had something 17:42:50 [sangeetha]: Wanted to know where we will want to host the ipv6 specific templates ? 17:43:11 [chipc]: that hasn't been decided - want to raise it on the list? 17:43:26 [aprateek]: yes, this information needs to be also updated in db scripts 17:43:41 [Chandan]: once we make a decision on it...the db needs to reflect the location info 17:43:41 [chipc]: aprateek: nope, we aren't using the new templates as "default" for the release 17:43:56 [ke4qqq]: we can likely do it on S3 or perhaps Wido - I like the Wido idea personally. 17:44:04 [chipc]: we need a location, and then docs for what to change to get them 17:44:11 [jzb]: sangeetha: are you going to take that to the list? 17:44:11 [ke4qqq]: Chandan: why? don't we manually download those sysvm templates 17:44:13 [jzb]: ke4qqq: what about SourceForge? 17:44:14 [chipc]: since IPv6 is experimental 17:44:33 [sangeetha]: This will be used only by folks who want to try IPV6 feature .. 17:44:41 [chipc]: sangeetha: right 17:44:48 [aprateek]: ok, we will need these new templates for 4.2 17:44:55 [chipc]: aprateek: yes, absolutely 17:45:10 [ke4qqq]: jzb: possibility I assume - just weird for us as a project to do it as opposed to Wido or CTXS 17:45:18 [sangeetha]: In 4.2 , we aerw testing IPV6 feature with system generated templates ... 17:45:28 [sangeetha]: I have one issue logged for 4.2 .. 17:46:00 [sangeetha]: We will be certifying IPV6 feature using system generated templates only for 4.2 17:46:20 [chipc]: ok, so are we done with 4.1 topics? 17:46:20 [Chandan]: ke4qqq : We can... But if someone is actually deploying the setup fresh with ipv6 templates seeded on the secondary storage..... 17:46:27 [jzb]: sangeetha, aprateek - 4.2 is really beyond the scope of this topic :-) 17:46:48 [jzb]: anything else on 4.1? 17:47:06 [jzb]: OK, moving to 17:47:11 [chipc]: not from me # 5. Active Bug-Fix Release # 17:47:19 [Chandan]: ke4qqq: the url info that we provide for the system vms are presented during db deployment 17:48:19 [jzb]: I'm just going to roll up all the 4.0.2 discussion under that topic. 17:48:41 [jzb]: We have two blocker bugs that I think may be sorted out. I need to confirm that. 17:49:17 [jzb]: ke4qqq noted something that went into master or 4.1 that probably applies to 4.0.2 17:49:26 [jzb]: I'll try to get that applied today. 17:49:35 [jzb]: I hope to get it wrapped up by Monday 17:49:55 [chipc]: jzb: great - it would be good to get it out before 4.1.0 ;-) 17:49:55 [jzb]: I'm wondering how that's going to work with 4.1.0 so close 17:49:55 [jzb]: indeed. 17:50:10 [chipc]: I'd suggest pushing to get it started off first 17:50:41 [jzb]: of course, if .. certain things come to pass, it will be a more streamlined process 17:50:48 [jzb]: the VOTE anyway 17:50:50 [ke4qqq]: indeed 17:50:56 [jzb]: anyone else have any 4.0.2. topics? 17:51:43 [jzb]: OK # 6. Master Branch # 17:52:03 [jzb]: what have we got on the master branch this week? 17:52:26 [chipc]: I have a topic, which I'll raise on the list... I'd like to suggest that someone else run with RM'ing 4.2.0 17:52:27 [chipc]: to share the love 17:52:36 [chipc]: so just a heads up on that 17:52:56 [chipc]: happy to do it if required, but I think someone besides jzb and myself should give it a shot 17:53:12 [jzb]: chipc: ah⦠interesting you bring that up :-) 17:53:22 [jzb]: I was planning on doing the same with 4.1.x :-) 17:53:50 [chipc]: ok, so I'll take the action to start a thread to see if anyone wants to step forward 17:54:05 [chipc]: #action chipc to raise the question of new release management volunteers for our next releases 17:55:03 [jzb]: any other issues related to master? 17:55:26 [jzb]: alrighty 17:55:26 [topcloud]: just a quick note. 17:55:33 [jzb]: topcloud: shoot 17:55:41 [topcloud]: vogxn and i are workign on the bvt. 17:55:50 [topcloud]: well, really vogxn is. i just whine. 17:55:56 [ke4qqq]: :) 17:56:04 [topcloud]: but our first step is going to be a checkin test for everyone to do before checkin. 17:56:05 [vogxn]: we need whining 17:56:11 [chipc]: topcloud: that counts 17:56:11 [chipc]: ;-) 17:56:12 [jzb]: topcloud: wouldn't that be Infra? 17:56:18 [jzb]: or is that master? 17:56:26 [topcloud]: master. 17:56:33 [topcloud]: kinda late to fit it into 4.1 17:56:49 [topcloud]: so the idea is to take rat test and some part of bvt and simulator and roll it into a test. 17:57:06 [topcloud]: so that we can at least have some idea of stability when someone checks in. 17:57:32 [topcloud]: and that's only first step. the next would be to extend it to devcloud. 17:57:32 [chipc]: topcloud: I'm excited about that 17:57:33 [ke4qqq]: me too 17:57:40 [jzb]: +1 17:57:47 [topcloud]: but i don't want to take too much time on this. we'll discuss on the list. just heads up. 17:57:56 [chipc]: ACTION not really enjoying being a human replacement for an automated commit review process 17:58:56 [jzb]: chipc: we do appreciate it. 17:59:11 [jzb]: OK, that moves us to # 7. Infra # 17:59:22 [jzb]: Any infra issues to discuss this week? I suspect yes. 17:59:42 [ke4qqq]: ? 17:59:44 [vogxn]: our packaging is broken again 17:59:52 [vogxn]: i don't know how to fix it :( 17:59:57 [chipc]: packaging in which branch? 17:59:59 [ke4qqq]: vogxn: our packaging or the node that packages it? 18:00:12 [vogxn]: the node that pacakges is barfing 18:00:22 [vogxn]: cpio bad magic 18:00:27 [ke4qqq]: vogxn: why not blow the node away and bring up a new one (config is in puppet right?) 18:00:49 [vogxn]: think edison set this one up and there's not much puppetization 18:01:20 [vogxn]: i'll see if i can blow it away and start afresh 18:01:33 [ke4qqq]: hmmm - why don't we spin another node up and start fresh, seems to be node specific - I can still build 18:01:51 [vogxn]: yeah. will do that. just want all package, build jobs to show success before rc 18:02:26 [ke4qqq]: me too - but the problems seem to be node specific in this case 18:02:28 [ke4qqq]: easier to just get rid of the node 18:02:43 [vogxn]: the cloudy way. yes. destroy , recreate :) 18:02:56 [chipc]: kill those cattle 18:02:57 [ke4qqq]: vogxn: preferably with puppet this time :) 18:03:05 [vogxn]: ke4qqq: sure. 18:03:10 [ke4qqq]: chipc: s/kill/slaughter/ :) 18:03:18 [vogxn]: i also started the tests for xenserver and the smoke tests have bene running. and reporting on IRC 18:03:26 [chipc]: only if you enjoy it 18:03:33 [vogxn]: some fixes are required for getting 100% and i'm doing those 18:03:41 [chipc]: vogxn: thanks for that 18:03:42 [vogxn]: KVM was unblocked by widodh today 18:03:48 [ke4qqq]: awesome 18:03:48 [vogxn]: so that can be turned on as well 18:04:11 [vogxn]: edison is helping me setup that nexus proxy for speeding up the builds 18:04:12 [vogxn]: that's it from infra 18:04:33 [jzb]: OK # 8. others? # 18:04:44 [chipc]: jzb reminded me off channel - just a heads up to everyone 18:04:48 [jzb]: anything else we need to discuss this week? 18:05:11 [chipc]: *if* we graduate today - then we are going to be rocking through infra changes as fast as we can to be setup as a TLP 18:05:21 [chipc]: so *pay attention to the list* for emails about changes 18:05:29 [chipc]: EOF on that topic 18:05:41 [ke4qqq]: ACTION wants to emphasize that 18:05:48 [ke4qqq]: git especially will change 18:05:56 [ke4qqq]: you will need to change your remote 18:06:14 [chipc]: those of you that happen to be in a $dayjob role with lots of other community members - please highlight that 18:06:33 [ke4qqq]: but there will be large scale changes coming in the next few days (we hope) 18:06:41 [chipc]: ACTION looks at topcloud, Animesh, sudhap ;-) 18:06:49 [ke4qqq]: the only way you'll know/find out is watching the list 18:07:03 [ke4qqq]: lead time will be short on many of these changes 18:08:02 [ke4qqq]: EOF 18:08:10 [jzb]: OK 18:08:25 [jzb]: unless there's anything else, I'm going to call it a meeting 18:08:55 [jzb]: thanks folks!
