17:04:16 <cdub> #startmeeting
17:04:16 <odl_meetbot> Meeting started Tue Jan 28 17:04:16 2014 UTC.  The chair is cdub. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:04:16 <odl_meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:04:23 <cdub> #topic roll call
17:04:26 <tykeal> #info Andrew Grimberg for infrastructure support
17:05:18 <regXboi> #info regXboi for openDove (still)
17:06:07 <phrobb> #info Phil Robb here, download page and other
17:06:08 <tykeal> what, you didn't change projects after yesterday regXboi?
17:06:42 <cdub> #include Chris Wright for ...
17:06:45 * regXboi has thought about it, but who'd have me?
17:06:48 <cdub> heh, *sigh*
17:06:49 <abhijitkumbhare> #info Abhijit Kumbhare OpenFlow plugin
17:06:53 <cdub> #info Chris Wright for ...
17:07:17 <tykeal> cdub:  is having a problem figuring out what kind of silliness he's here representing today
17:07:52 <Madhu> #info Madhu here too
17:07:55 <tykeal> cdub: I think you're here for all the sleepless ones
17:07:55 <cdub> tykeal: and having language trouble too
17:08:07 <cdub> tykeal: heh, that's about right
17:08:12 <regXboi> so... I have a quesiton about the non-osgi things that have to go into the support VMs
17:08:25 <cdub> #topic artifact release status
17:08:40 <cdub> so the only one i'm not up to speed on is integration
17:09:02 <cdub> we had all others done AFAIK when I left last night
17:09:05 <cdub> any updates?
17:09:23 <tykeal> from the email I saw to discuss we've got artifacts out for integration and there was an ask for folks to do some testing against it
17:09:34 <cdub> and, any issues from testing? </hint>
17:09:49 <regXboi> so... I'll ask again
17:09:58 <regXboi> what about non OSGI artifacts?
17:10:19 <cdub> shague: are you aware of that?
17:10:28 <tykeal> the only one that I've been seeing is here: https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/001192.html
17:10:51 <networkstatic> #info networkstatic static with ovsdb
17:10:53 <cdub> regXboi: i know your specific interest is in opendove agent, etc
17:10:57 <regXboi> tykeal: yes - I plan on pulling the virt edition and test driving the opendove portion later this morning
17:11:02 <tykeal> I don't know if a bug has been raised about that issue
17:11:10 <shague> cdub: integration buids, yes,
17:12:02 <cdub> shague: meaning there are binary artifacts for opendove?
17:12:43 <shague> yeah, anees has been working on the rpm's for it.
17:12:47 <Madhu> cdub: kyle tested the virt edition for ovsdb + devstack integration for OF13 and it is a go.
17:13:04 <regXboi> my understanding from ashaikh was that he had submitted specs for rpms to go into the support VM
17:13:19 <regXboi> and I'm trying to push that across the finish line as well
17:13:58 <cdub> regXboi: and you work with shague on finishing that?
17:14:02 <cdub> s/and/can/
17:14:16 <cdub> Madhu: cool, #info?
17:14:20 <regXboi> that's why I'm here
17:14:20 * tykeal forgives cdub's lacking of typing skills this morning ;)
17:14:33 <cdub> tykeal: thanks ;)
17:14:53 <cdub> regXboi: ok, let's consider you and sam connected and then we can move on
17:14:56 <shague> cdub: yes, we have been reviewing the specs. Annes pushed a new one that I am reviewing today
17:15:11 <cdub> #action regXboi and shague will work to get opendove rpms into VM
17:15:16 <regXboi> shague: please include me in the reply
17:15:22 <cdub> shague: ok, thanks
17:15:34 <Madhu> #info Kyle confirmed that the released Virt edition (with ovsdb & OF13) integrates fine with devstack
17:15:59 <regXboi> #info initial tests of opendove from virt edition looks good will have more details later
17:16:32 <cdub> i have an open question which is about 3rd party code in controller project
17:16:49 <cdub> i'll send to list, but perhaps folks here have a thought?
17:17:02 <regXboi> do we have a list of 3rd party code?
17:17:07 <cdub> the 3rd party code was runnin as a snapshot for quite some time
17:17:24 <cdub> and, in particular, openflowj, had to be down-rev'd in snmp4sdn
17:17:54 <cdub> makes me wonder if we should've released those projects too
17:18:17 <cdub> regXboi: jersey-servlet  org.apache.catalina.filters.CorsFilter com.siemens.ct.exi  net.sf.jung2 ganymed             openflowj
17:18:50 <cdub> #info who owns controller/third-party and when do we release those artifacts?
17:19:02 <regXboi> ah yes, thanks
17:19:08 <tykeal> cdub: shouldn't that be more of a help?
17:19:22 <cdub> fair
17:19:33 <cdub> #help who owns controller/third-party and when do we release those artifacts?
17:20:59 <cdub> i'll take silence as no great insights...fair enough ;)
17:21:10 <phrobb> I think EdWarnicke has been tracking those for controller.  I've been working with him on making sure source is available for the LGPL component dependencies
17:21:11 <tykeal> heh
17:22:09 <cdub> phrobb: ok, mainly thiking we have some changes that we might not have picked up by reverting to the last known released version
17:22:11 <edwarnicke> cdub:
17:22:22 <cdub> #topic documentation
17:22:43 <cdub> edwarnicke!  you have some thoughts on that?
17:22:52 <edwarnicke> cdub: Back in September GiovanniMeo_Away cut a trial run release of controller, and cut all the third party except for ganymed
17:23:07 <edwarnicke> He then commented them out, so they haven't been built or changed since then
17:23:13 <edwarnicke> So we did not need to respin them
17:23:22 <edwarnicke> We did respin ganymed
17:23:35 <cdub> edwarnicke: ok, openflowj had some minor changes which we simply dropped
17:23:36 <edwarnicke> cdub: Thank you for your attention to detail though :)  Please don't ever stop :)
17:23:46 <edwarnicke> cdub: *sigh*
17:24:00 <cdub> s/1.6/1.7 java src/target
17:24:04 <edwarnicke> (additional note: nerves fried today, so if I don't make sense, please call me on it)
17:24:15 <cdub> and some other minor pom thing (maven plugin maybe)
17:24:26 <edwarnicke> What were the changes/
17:24:28 <edwarnicke> ?
17:25:07 <cdub> edwarnicke: git show 80fa93b16fe26d6f0d5ea71ff4f387a48b09b5fa (if you're in controller repo)
17:25:50 <cdub> #link http://fpaste.org/72446/92994413/
17:26:36 <cdub> again, not critical so much as something i think we simply "left behind" and should make sure we keep on those things (and I only looked at one or two other thrid-party bits last night before falling over)
17:27:06 <cdub> so...documentation
17:27:14 <cdub> anyone here from the Docs team?
17:27:42 <cdub> we're in the final mile here folks..working code is only a part of the picture
17:28:37 <cdub> can anyone #info a docs status (realizing it's not likely any different from last friday)
17:29:12 <abhijitkumbhare> #info For the openflow plugin project - we think the documentation will need end of the week.
17:29:34 <cdub> abhijitkumbhare: thank you
17:29:41 <regXboi> #info same for opendove
17:29:45 <cdub> heh
17:29:55 <regXboi> working on it as we sit here
17:30:05 <regXboi> but review time needs to be factored in
17:30:09 * edwarnicke expects to be documenting furiously until the end of the week
17:30:14 <cdub> regXboi: good point
17:30:17 <ermagan> #info for lisp, same here, we'll have documentation by end of this week
17:30:34 <cdub> #info documenation is not just writing, but also reviewing and trying the docs
17:30:49 <edwarnicke> cdub: I think if it as testing the docs... but concur :)
17:31:07 <regXboi> cdub: that's how I'm writing the docs - on the fly as I verify that stuff works :)
17:31:08 <cdub> #info trying aka testing the docs
17:31:13 <cdub> regXboi: ok
17:31:36 <edwarnicke> regXboi: Its not just making sure the thing they describe works, but also making sure that they make sense to another pair of eyes
17:31:53 * edwarnicke often epicly fails at the second test
17:32:03 <cdub> i'm going to go out on a limb here and say docs are still in the at-risk category...
17:32:10 <abhijitkumbhare> yes
17:32:13 <regXboi> yes
17:32:25 <regXboi> edwarnicke: hence my comment about review
17:32:29 <networkstatic> what is drop dead for doc btw?
17:32:43 <cdub> #help Documentation needs help.  Code isn't usable if it's either undocumented or the docs are unintelligible...Please Help!
17:33:16 <networkstatic> we need a target :)
17:33:17 <cdub> networkstatic: i think tomorrow is current plan
17:33:31 <networkstatic> roger sir
17:33:33 <networkstatic> yikes
17:33:43 <edwarnicke> cdub: I would actually suggest that may be to soon for most folks.  I know tomorrow was the goal
17:33:47 <cdub> networkstatic: yeah, yikes
17:34:10 <networkstatic> maybe a status review
17:34:15 <networkstatic> keep pressure up :)
17:34:20 <edwarnicke> networkstatic: definitely a status review
17:34:40 <edwarnicke> Have folks started filling in their Release Review templates so that we can hold release reviews/
17:34:43 <edwarnicke> ?
17:34:47 <dmm> cdub: do you mean that tomorrow is too soon for release reviews?
17:35:18 <dmm> edwarnicke: I sent an email to discuss with a strawman proposal for release reviews
17:36:10 <edwarnicke> dmm: Thank you, apoligies for being a bit behind this morning
17:36:17 <dmm> no worries
17:36:45 <cdub> #info pinged Rob, asked for status and suggeste we consider a realistic deadline if we are off schedule
17:37:08 <cdub> dmm: well, good question, is docs part of that (sorry, no longer recall what's in there)?
17:37:28 <edwarnicke> dmm: If memory serves, it is
17:37:42 <cdub> ok then, i'd say...yup gonna slip
17:38:06 <cdub> dmm: what pieces to we need settled to do release reviews?
17:38:35 <cdub> dmm: we've got mechanics of artifact release behind us...testing pending, docs incomplete
17:38:49 <networkstatic> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Sample_User_Guide
17:39:25 <dmm> networkstatic: thnx
17:39:30 <networkstatic> sorry that was just an informational link for meeting, wasn't sure if i should summit to notes or note
17:39:33 <networkstatic> er not
17:40:21 <dmm> cdub: right, but the calendar to get this (release reviews) looks challenging
17:40:35 <cdub> networkstatic: if you #link it gets into the meeting summary nicely (just need some context for minutes readers)
17:40:41 <edwarnicke> #link https://nexus.opendaylight.org/content/repositories/opendaylight.snapshot/org/opendaylight/integration/ release editions are here.  I suspect these are what folks should use for any place in their docs they are referring to the release editions
17:40:53 <dmm> (which is why I wanted to use the TSC call for this in addition to some other time, TBD)
17:42:04 <cdub> edwarnicke: reasonble point...part of being cohesive/coherent...
17:42:35 <cdub> dmm: ok, i'm at a loss for how we'll complete this
17:43:05 <cdub> dmm: i'd be happy w/ using these IRC meetings for review...which should mainly end w/ a bunch of +1s
17:43:13 <networkstatic> #link Sample user guide that each project has to have for their project  https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Sample_User_Guide
17:43:13 <edwarnicke> On release reviews, lets start simple
17:43:27 <edwarnicke> Could folks just get current versions of where they are into their release review docs
17:43:33 <cdub> here, let's change topic
17:43:38 <cdub> #topic release reviews
17:44:06 <dmm> cdub: also would work, as long as we can coordinate; we could do Thursday/Friday
17:44:21 <dmm> I estimated 15 min/per; realistic?
17:44:45 <cdub> depends, we've been konwn to digress ;)
17:44:56 <dmm> cdub: :-)
17:45:23 <cdub> edwarnicke: can you #info that, and then double down and repeat on the list?
17:46:06 <dmm> edwarnicke: definitely
17:46:32 <cdub> dmm: but yeah, something like that...ideally it'd be only 5min, but 15min is reasonable for first try at this
17:46:33 <dmm> I guess I need to modify my strawman
17:46:51 <edwarnicke> #info Let's start simple, could folks just get current versions of where they are into their release review docs
17:46:57 <cdub> #action dmm will update strawman release reviews
17:47:17 <edwarnicke> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Sample_Release_Review - Release Review template
17:47:35 <cdub> ok anything else we can accomplish on this topic?
17:47:45 <edwarnicke> Everybody good with asking folks to hang their release review off their project pages?
17:47:59 <dmm> cdub: probably not other than folks making sure that folks fill out the template
17:48:06 <dmm> move along...
17:48:30 <cdub> edwarnicke: wfm
17:49:09 <abhijitkumbhare> I suggest changing the "Architectural Issues" and "Security Issues" to just "Known Limitations and Bugs" in release review template?
17:49:11 <cdub> (i do like a central point of indirection so we don't have to chase down 15links, but that's pretty minor)
17:49:12 <edwarnicke> #info please put release review documents under your project page as 'Hydrogen Release Review for $PROJECT'
17:49:25 <regXboi> all: need to run to another call in 10 minutes
17:49:30 <edwarnicke> abhijitkumbhare: Could you explain the thinking behind that?
17:49:46 <abhijitkumbhare> Actually limitations only - bugs is already in bugzilla
17:50:14 <cdub> regXboi: ok, we're nearing the end here. next up is downloads page and double  back on testing now that LuisGomez is here
17:50:23 <abhijitkumbhare> First of all the limitations are not captured under arch & security issues
17:50:38 <regXboi> alrighty, I'll try and catch up on the minutes later
17:50:53 <LuisGomez> yes, i am here
17:50:55 <cdub> regXboi: cool,thanks
17:51:31 <cdub> dmm: you see abhijitkumbhare toughts on template?
17:51:42 <dmm> cdub: yeah
17:52:23 <cdub> abhijitkumbhare: regardless of the title, it's good to know what is known not to work, and it's good to know "don't face this towards the internet"
17:52:40 <abhijitkumbhare> Yes
17:53:13 <edwarnicke> Hmm... wouldn't they be captured under the Bug section
17:53:23 <cdub> abhijitkumbhare: perhaps your suggestion is to just collapse to one, and that the limiation or known issues are self-explanatory?
17:53:30 <abhijitkumbhare> Yes
17:53:46 <edwarnicke> I do think we should have the current sections, but an not averse to a 'Known Limitations' section
17:53:46 <abhijitkumbhare> I mean yes to cdub
17:54:07 <edwarnicke> (Security issues are often called out as seperate thing)
17:54:27 <cdub> i think we want to make sure ... ^^ what edwarnicke said
17:54:46 <cdub> but aside of that, i'm not picky about wording, location, etc...
17:55:56 <cdub> ok, let's take this to the list as part of the strawman thread to work out specific details
17:56:00 <abhijitkumbhare> edwarnicke (but security issues may be hard to identify at the moment - so it may be hard to give us a cerificate that there are no known security issues :-) )
17:56:18 <abhijitkumbhare> I meant give ourselves a cert
17:56:47 <cdub> maybe wording can be useful...'security considerations' instead of 'issues'
17:56:58 <abhijitkumbhare> OK
17:57:11 <dmm> cdub: yes (security considerations)
17:57:15 <cdub> alright, let's move on, and finish above on the list
17:57:28 <cdub> #topic downloads
17:57:49 <cdub> phrobb: any input here?
17:58:13 <cdub> shague, tykeal you too?
17:58:55 <tykeal> cdub: there's been some mail flying around with pics of mock-ups for the page ;)
17:59:35 <cdub> #link https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2014-January/000805.html downloads mockups
17:59:56 <cdub> tykeal: there's one...
18:00:07 <phrobb> cdub:  sorry, multi-tasking.  Mock up pages sent to tsc  Plrease respond to that with your preference.  Shague and LF folks working together on what will go where
18:00:10 <cdub> #info input welcome
18:00:20 <shague> some dicsussion around how to add the additional downlaod adrtifacts like D4A and oepndove.
18:00:52 <cdub> phrobb: thanks
18:01:23 <cdub> shague: ok, and that discussion is reasonably well in-hand...nothing major that needs group input, right?
18:02:00 <shague> yeah, no extra input is needed.
18:02:03 <cdub> cool, thanks
18:02:07 <cdub> #topics testing
18:02:13 <cdub> LuisGomez: you're up
18:02:21 <LuisGomez> my turn then
18:02:29 <cdub> we got some initial feedback earlier in meeting...waht's the latest?
18:02:46 <cdub> (ovsdb and opendove reported that initial testing was positive)
18:03:06 <LuisGomez> system test passed for the editions built from project releases just before integration release cut
18:03:28 <LuisGomez> today we will pass the test to the releases
18:03:55 <LuisGomez> these are in nexus and current automation only fetch from jenkins
18:04:13 <LuisGomez> thats why we could not test the release artifacts yesterday
18:04:14 <cdub> ah, how much work to update scripts?
18:04:53 <LuisGomez> i will just need to create around 8 jobs in jenkins to fetch the releases and test them
18:05:07 <LuisGomez> like couple of hours maximum
18:05:25 <cdub> so doable today and results tomorrow?
18:05:39 <LuisGomez> or i can download the editions and test in ,y local env, that will take less than 30 min
18:05:53 * cdub mumbles automate... ;)
18:06:07 <LuisGomez> but it is good to automate
18:06:47 <LuisGomez> we have already a suite for of13 in base edition
18:06:49 <cdub> ok, so sounds like tomorrow we should have test results either way?
18:06:54 <cdub> ccccccbugiknnkkeefrkfebhrtrhdhcldrdjelcifbtb
18:06:54 <LuisGomez> yes
18:07:31 <cdub> cool (sorry about the garbage above)
18:07:57 <cdub> #info automating tests to pull release artifacts, expecting results tomorrow
18:08:10 <cdub> LuisGomez: anything else?
18:08:21 <LuisGomez> i can also pass vtn mgr system test with of13 option
18:08:37 <cdub> oh, that's new
18:08:45 <LuisGomez> affinity system test is still ongoing work
18:09:11 <cdub> LuisGomez: we had 2 issues w/ of13...one was it didn't work w/ mininet1.0, other was it iddn't work w/ vtn
18:09:14 <LuisGomez> yes vtn mgr system test is ready since last week
18:09:35 <cdub> do you mean pass the test, or pass of13 option to the test?
18:09:41 <LuisGomez> mininet 1.0 got much better
18:10:00 <abhijitkumbhare> LuisGomez: great that VTN passes with the of13 option
18:10:01 <LuisGomez> there was a huge issue last week and this week seems fixed
18:10:15 <LuisGomez> for VTN i do not know, i need to test
18:10:23 <cdub> ok, that's great, can you #info the update?
18:10:49 <LuisGomez> the big issue was observed running NSF test with mininrt 1.0
18:10:54 <LuisGomez> but that one is good now
18:11:01 <LuisGomez> ok
18:11:27 <LuisGomez> #info today we will work on automate release test
18:11:44 <LuisGomez> #info release system test result available today
18:12:01 <cdub> alright, thanks
18:12:19 <cdub> let's move on to the final topic
18:12:31 <cdub> #topic any other topic?
18:13:03 <cdub> i have nothing...will leave it open for a minute
18:13:12 * cdub sleep 60 &
18:14:22 <cdub> ok, i think we're done
18:14:26 <cdub> thanks all
18:14:29 <cdub> #endmeeting