16:01:17 #startmeeting MD-SAL interest call 16:01:17 Meeting started Tue Mar 17 16:01:17 2015 UTC. The chair is devinavery. Information about MeetBot at http://ci.openstack.org/meetbot.html. 16:01:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:01:17 The meeting name has been set to 'md_sal_interest_call' 16:05:29 #chair tbachman 16:05:29 Current chairs: devinavery tbachman 16:05:41 devinavery: if you have the host key we can record as well 16:06:21 #info devinavery says last week we discussed doing a review of changes in the works, in order to keep track of what’s going on as well as bring others into the conversation 16:06:26 * tbachman goes off to get some links... 16:07:01 #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/MD-SAL_Weekly_Call Weekly call, with agenda 16:07:42 #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/MD-SAL_Weekly_Call#Queries shows changes to the controller 16:07:54 #info edwarnicke asks if there’s a way to remove “excessively stale” patches 16:08:08 #info devinavery says we could add some constraint, such as older than 30 days 16:08:57 #info devinavery says the first goal is to get a sense of what changes are going into the controller core 16:09:24 #info devinavery asks if there are any other projects besides controller and yangtools that are needed 16:09:35 * tbachman hears colindixon and edwarnicke cross-talk 16:09:53 #info colindixon says we could add AAA 16:10:33 #info edwarnicke says he’s a bit concerned about scope creeping beyond the capacity to influence (e.g. we may not have any AAA committers here) 16:10:49 #info colindixon says that’s where we may want to intentionally increase the scope 16:11:17 #info edwarnicke says at some point this stops becoming just an MD-SAL call, and is a different call (not a bad thing, just different) 16:11:52 #info devinavery says we may also want to collect NETCONF and MD-SAL breakouts here 16:13:32 #info devinavery says one example was in Helium, POSTing on RESTCONF wouldn’t wait for the data store 16:14:20 #info devinavery says in yangtools, the orderby clause was broken for SFC, which was fixed 16:14:41 #info colindixon asks about the ordered by fix 16:14:50 * tbachman wonders why colindixon sounds like he’s at the bottom of a hole 16:15:33 #info ttkacik says the orderedby statement is honored by the data store, but the problem is that configuration data requires you to have a key 16:15:52 #info ttkacik says the orderedby was to show that the data was reordered after the PUT 16:16:09 #info ttkacik says the MD-SAL will use less-efficient data structures, but will preserve the ordering 16:16:16 #info colindixon asks why it’s less efficient 16:16:45 #info rovarga says simply b/c you have to use a linked hashmap and not a hashmap — you need an iterable collection that guides the iteration ordered 16:17:02 #info colindixon says you need one extra pointer per object — it’s about a 2% hit 16:17:33 #info rovarga says there are no just pointers in java, so it has to go somewhere (objects have a minimum size of 12 bytes); with collections that are millions of entries long, this makes a differenc 16:18:35 #info rovarga says if you say a particular list is ordered by, then a different backing class is used to store those entries — a linked hash map 16:18:49 #info rovarga says a trie or hash map won’t preserve the order 16:26:52 * tbachman had a power-outage…. back 16:26:58 logging back in to webex 16:27:29 #info discussing patch size - do we have any experience on how many lines is too many 16:28:34 #info no consensus on if line counts are useful or not... 16:28:42 * tbachman is back 16:28:58 #info ttkacik says they aren’t one-to-one — multiple patch sets can be attached to the bug 16:29:03 #info proposal that bug should have a bug in "large line count" patches 16:29:10 Take it Thomas - thanks 16:29:12 np 16:29:44 #info devinavery asks if it’s fair to say that even if it’s the same bug ID, it’s a bug ID in the commit message — is it fair to say we encourage this in bug commit messages? 16:30:03 #info edwarnicke says it’s a good idea to have bug IDs in commit messages in general 16:30:22 #info edwarnicke asks what is the purpose of the attaching bug 16:31:02 #info ttkacik says there are two types: some that are mostly about the functionality, which should have bugs attached; and others that only deal with source code quality 16:31:12 #info ttkacik says it doesn’t make sense to create bugs for the small issues 16:31:49 #info rovarga seconds that — recalls a number of “drive-by’s” like this. Isn’t sure that forcing this for all patches isn’t the right way 16:32:26 #info edwarnicke says sonar has been very useful — encourages folks to go to sonar and start working through the code-quality complaints 16:33:16 #info colindixon says we’re looking for things that help us in practice, that are “probably should” guidelines 16:33:48 #info devinavery says if we’re changing functionality, a bug should exist — helps us understand the old behavior, desired behavior, and potentially how we’re going to fix it — asks if anyone objects to this 16:34:44 #info devinavery says it’s up to the committers to see if they understand the reason behind the change — if they don’t understand why it’s necessary, they can request more information, and this is where a bug is helpful 16:35:01 #info rovarga says you have to be careful with that guidance 16:35:35 #info devinavery says part of the goal is to have others besides committers review the code — the committers also need to ensure the rest of the community understands what’s changing 16:36:08 #info rovarga says explaining things to the general public means that if someone doesn’t get it, you can’t merge the change — have to be careful with these kinds of statements 16:36:35 #info edwarnicke says he believes devinavery is saying something different — he’s saying that it’s helpful to us to grow the community if we make some effort to help others who are trying to get involved 16:36:56 #info devinavery says yes — also a historical dimension to this — helps folks who come later to understand 16:37:35 #info devinavery says that’s one of the reasons for a bug — isn’t to gate the merge, but to help people understand them 16:37:48 #info rovarga says he’d encourage using better commit messages first, then using bugs 16:38:29 #info devinavery says yes — the commit message is important; but bug IDs can help as a reference for very long descriptions that aren’t appropriate for commit messages 16:43:09 * tbachman returns from narcoleptic fit 16:43:40 #info edwarnicke asks if there are known outstanding issues with restconf — is interested in moving with the clustering switchover 16:43:51 #info ttkacik says he needs to verify his patch fixes the downstream projects 16:44:10 #info edwarnicke asks if we’ve come up with a smarter way of informing folks of changes of this nature 16:44:52 #info devinavery says we may have to follow up on this in a subsequent call 16:46:13 #info ttkacik says the patches for Bug 2362 changes constraints validation from compulsory to optional 16:47:10 #info colindixon says if this is going to slow controller down by 3-4 weeks, then we can talk about this 16:47:35 * tbachman hears colindixon doing daddy day care 16:48:35 #info edwarnicke asks if there’s a more effective way of communicating changes that break everything 16:49:21 #info colindixon says no, but he feels the right approach is to have both a static place to log them, and email release, and cross-link the two 16:49:49 #info colindixon says he has an email (either already sent, or in his outbox) on this topic 16:50:28 #info devinavery says next week will be a presentation on the message bus 16:50:32 #endmeeting