14:00:46 #startmeeting ovirt-node weekly sync 14:00:46 Meeting started Thu Dec 1 14:00:46 2011 UTC. The chair is mburns. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:46 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:01:41 #topic roll call 14:01:44 ok, so who's here today for the ovirt-node call 14:01:47 * pmyers is in 14:02:16 here 14:02:51 #info mburns pmyers jboggs cctrieloff 14:03:14 #topic agenda 14:03:31 villep: selinux issues, perhaps? 14:03:34 1. release readyiness 14:03:44 2. stateless updates 14:03:47 3. plugin updates 14:03:54 anyone else have other topics? 14:03:55 4. review of last week's action items 14:04:20 5. planning the next release to align with f17 and listing which features we're going to target for that release 14:04:49 mburns: let's start with release readiness and follow into AI review 14:04:58 and then follow your ordering from there 14:04:58 pmyers: ack 14:05:14 #topic release readiness 14:05:47 #info current status: node can install and register, storage can be added, slight issue with creating a vm 14:06:06 mburns: ah so dougsland_ fixed the vdsm issue then? 14:06:07 some of this is with patches that are not merged yet 14:06:21 pmyers: that's my understanding 14:06:22 what is vdsm team's ETA on merging these patches? 14:06:30 abaron? ^^^ 14:06:50 and do the issues w/ creating a vm manifest on bare metal Fedora or only on the Fedora oVirt Node? 14:06:59 i.e. is it a general issue or oVirt Node specific issue 14:07:03 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752464#c23 14:07:26 pmyers: from reading comments on ^^, it's more a iso domain issue 14:07:31 which is independent of rhev-h 14:07:33 ok 14:07:41 dougsland_: is that still the case? ^^ 14:07:59 pmyers, still need to improve some of the patches but I got it working 14:08:03 mburns, yep 14:08:07 mburns: also there was the bug with the oVirt Engine UI not being able to approve a Node 14:08:14 I cannot push a ISO to my ISO Domain 14:08:18 have we talked to someone on UI team to see if they can prioritize this? 14:08:20 to install a virtual machine and test 14:08:21 it 14:08:29 pmyers: hmm, wasn't aware of that 14:08:40 dougsland_ listed it in his release blocker email 14:08:46 #action mburns will talk to engine team to get approval option prioritized 14:08:51 pmyers: oh right, i remember now 14:08:59 it's only available through api 14:09:10 yep 14:09:14 mburns, pardon? 14:09:15 * mburns is apparently a little slow this morning 14:09:22 is it about the ISO stuff ? 14:09:35 dougsland_: no, approval of an ovirt-node image in the engine 14:09:37 dougsland_: no we're talking about a different bug 14:09:42 ah ok 14:09:48 is only available with api, not webadmin 14:09:55 pmyers: was there a bz for that? 14:10:04 or just a known issue? 14:10:29 #action dougsland_ get patches cleaned up and merged for vdsm 14:10:45 #action mburns, jboggs review and push ovirt-node patches 14:11:04 #link http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/First_release 14:11:19 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755749 14:11:43 mburns: other bug that we need to fix on our end is this: 14:11:46 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756136 14:11:57 it's in POST, what's preventing us from doing a build and getting it finished? 14:12:09 pmyers: just review and push 14:12:15 which is on my list for today 14:12:36 k 14:12:45 #action mburns to get ovirt-node and ovirt-node-tools builds posted to ovirt.org 14:13:02 ok so we have no ETA for oVirt Node working since we're blocked on a webadmin bug and a ISO creation bug 14:13:08 #action mburns to update wiki with instructions for building iso using just -tools rpm 14:13:11 once we get ETAs on those two, we'll then have an ETA for the Node itself 14:13:19 pmyers: correct 14:13:21 cctrieloff: ^^ 14:13:52 #info no firm ETA for node image build due to webadmin and vdsm bugs still pending 14:14:14 mburns: as an aside, please update the First_release wiki page as we make progress here 14:14:19 anything else on release readiness? 14:14:24 i.e. once that ovirt-node bug is fixed, indicate that 14:14:30 #action mburns to update First_release page as appropriate 14:14:56 ok, moving on unless someone has something else... 14:15:02 pmyers, replied to that thread 14:15:16 #topic action item review from last week 14:15:34 #link http://ovirt.org/meetings/ovirt/2011/ovirt.2011-11-17-14.01.html 14:15:54 jboggs: any updates for plugin design? 14:16:08 nothing yet other than what pmyers has posted to list 14:16:16 i updated the wiki page fwiw 14:16:21 maybe we should take a sec to take a look 14:16:24 and comment on it? 14:16:38 pmyers: can we defer to plugin updates topic? 14:16:41 ack 14:16:54 jboggs: how about stacks? 14:17:09 did get an update on that, will add to wiki page 14:17:29 #action jboggs to update wiki page with stacks information 14:17:53 my action items: 14:18:18 #info hot-add plugin rfe: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754781 14:18:42 #info TPM mode for stateless moved to future feature in wiki 14:19:02 #info registration issue is making progress, but still open until we get patches pushed 14:19:04 mburns: probably you should make that bug dependent on the general bug for 3rd party plugin support 14:19:25 #action mburns to make RFE bug dependent on 3rd party plugin support BZ 14:19:40 pmyers: did you add uses cases for upgrades to the wiki? 14:19:43 yep 14:19:56 #info wiki updated with upgrade use cases by pmyers 14:20:01 #link http://ovirt.org/wiki/Node_plugins 14:20:39 #info plugin design still pending 14:21:06 #info stacks info received from RHEL baseos team, to be added to the wiki 14:21:19 ok, that's it for last weeks action items 14:21:23 well, 2 weeks ago 14:21:36 #topic stateless update 14:21:53 #link http://ovirt.org/wiki/Node_Stateless 14:22:15 i moved the TMP stuff to future features 14:22:30 and moved some of the config server stuff around as well, but haven't made any other progress 14:23:11 #info no progress other than moving some info to a "Future Feature" section on the wiki 14:23:28 any other stateless comments? 14:23:54 ok, moving on 14:24:02 #topic plugins update 14:24:12 #link http://ovirt.org/wiki/Node_plugins 14:24:47 * mburns pauses to allow people to review the page 14:26:37 i think its a good start, just need to figure out what the contents of the tarball should look like 14:27:36 mburns: did I send an email out with that link? 14:27:38 * pmyers forgets 14:27:45 pmyers: which link? 14:27:47 we need to circulate the ideas wider than just this audience 14:27:55 the node plugins link after I made the updates 14:28:05 pmyers: hmm, not sure 14:28:23 ah I did 14:28:28 [node-devel] Updated thoughts on 3rd party plugins for oVirt Node 14:28:31 on 11/22 14:28:40 yes, i see that 14:28:46 I only sent to node-devel tho... I wonder if I should cross post that to arch@ 14:28:52 cctrieloff: is that a reasonable use for the arch list? 14:29:11 i don't see anything in the list for adding autoinstallation parameters 14:29:23 mburns: add it then 14:29:28 we already have some sort of support for that, but we'll need to document 14:29:53 #action mburns to add info on auto-install parameters to the wiki 14:30:05 pmyers: what's the point of the arch@ list? 14:30:17 I would suppose to discuss overall ovirt architecture 14:30:19 * mburns not clear on it's reason for existing... 14:30:27 s/it's/its 14:30:33 ok 14:30:34 and I would think that a high level topic like stateless and/or plugins would fall into that 14:30:41 since it does affect the entire ovirt ecosystem 14:30:42 then yeah, arch@ probably would make sense there 14:30:44 and not just the node 14:30:51 ack 14:31:21 anyone want the action of sending our stateless and plugin architecture designs to arch@ for review? 14:31:43 mburns, sure 14:31:47 i'm doing it already 14:31:49 :) 14:32:07 #action pmyers to send plugin and stateless designs to arch@ for review 14:32:26 ok, anything else on plugins? 14:33:11 #topic Next Release 14:33:24 #info planning to coincide with F17 14:33:52 #info f17 feature freeze is Feb 7 2012 14:34:25 #info f17 beta freeze is Mar 20 2012 14:34:47 #info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751856 is a must fix 14:34:54 we probably should aim to have the next version of oVirt Node ready with new features for the feature freeze date 14:35:10 and then focus between feature freeze and beta freeze on all of the changes that F17 will do to break the basic functionality 14:35:16 just like we do with _every_ new Fedora release 14:35:22 pmyers: ack 14:35:35 ok so the question then is.... 14:35:37 what new features can we realistically target for feature freeze 14:35:42 what features can we implement in Jan and early Feb 14:35:45 right 14:35:58 and how do we want to approach it 14:36:09 i think we should prioritize the plugin model 14:36:17 and jboggs agreed to own that one right? 14:36:20 yes 14:36:23 should we attack multiple things with 1 person each? 14:36:31 or put multiple people toward one effort? 14:36:38 to be realistic 14:36:55 i think mburns you can focus on getting the f16 node ironed out and the release process squared away 14:37:03 and jboggs for now can focus on the plugin stuff 14:37:10 ack 14:37:12 and we'll only bite of that one feature as the major one 14:37:17 everything else can be small/incremental 14:37:26 but let's review the outstanding fefature list 14:37:27 feature 14:37:51 #link https://fedorahosted.org/ovirt/wiki/Backlog 14:37:55 jboggs: if you come up with a task list with things that are mostly independent, i can probably take a couple 14:37:59 speaking of which, when are we migrating the wiki pages? 14:38:39 #agreed mburns will handle release coordination and F16 node stuff, jboggs will lead plugin effort 14:38:39 mburns: from the above link, look at the 2.2.0 feature list 14:38:42 there's just the one :) 14:38:50 "Fedora 16 based oVirt Node ISO image release" 14:39:22 pmyers: how are you generating that? 14:39:26 fixed-in-version? 14:39:34 yes 14:39:43 i'm using it to indicate what version it _will_ be fixed in 14:39:49 pmyers: as for wiki, goc started migrating already, though not completed afaik 14:40:08 let's also look at http://goo.gl/IMG4p 14:40:14 the list of all outstanding features 14:40:14 pmyers: can we use something like the whiteboards? 14:40:47 or are those not visible to everyone? 14:40:52 a lot are not visible 14:40:55 FIV is 14:41:06 and we can diffeerntiate between Fixed vs. will be fixed by doing 14:41:12 2.2.0 for will be fixed 14:41:20 and full NVR for 'already fixed and built" 14:41:25 pmyers: ack 14:41:27 that will work 14:41:42 normally you'd use the target drop down for this 14:41:55 but we can't populate that with ALL of the versions for every ovirt subproject 14:42:00 so this method will work 14:42:24 ok so let's review http://goo.gl/IMG4p and assign 2.3.0 FIV as appropriate 14:42:32 first bug in that list for me is 753315 14:42:34 pmyers: once we get to a consistent ovirt version, we can populate with that and have mapping of ovirt version to node version 14:42:46 mburns: perhaps 14:42:59 but our release schedule will be likely faster than theirs and not always aligned 14:43:02 so we'll see 14:43:47 #info use fixed in version field for target release and actual release. Target will be like 2.2.0 and actual will be full NVR 14:43:49 pmyers: true 14:44:36 hmm, iirc, we put the virt-manager-tui package in already, but don't have a way to run it 14:45:03 pmyers: but imo, it's a nice to have, but probably not a requirement for 2.2.0 14:45:25 which bug are you looking at? 14:45:31 yeah v-m-tui works just not integrated in the ui 14:45:31 753213 14:45:42 that was the first on the list when i opened your link 14:45:46 ah 14:45:49 ok different order 14:46:01 mburns: this seems fairly simple to get working then 14:46:07 perhaps smth you can do as a smaller feature for 2.3.0 14:46:29 we need to make sure that we provide a way to restrict to read-only socket for libvirt and read-only operations 14:46:32 i'll tag for 2.3 14:46:33 once vdsm takes control of system 14:46:44 mburns: as an aside use 2.3.0 as the field 14:46:53 so we can possibly differentiate things like 2.3.1 etc 14:47:05 * mburns changes to 2.3.0 14:47:19 753214 14:47:27 include matahari/libvirt-qmf 14:47:39 this should be fairly easy I think 14:47:41 assuming this is just adding the packages, it can go for 2.2.0 14:47:56 with the same caveat that we want to make libvirt-qmf use read only if vdsm is in control 14:48:00 if there's not a way to do that presently 14:48:07 you'll need to work with zbitter from #matahari channel 14:48:13 ack 14:48:29 * mburns flags for 2.2.0 and will defer if it gets too big 14:48:35 2.3.0 you mean 14:48:43 2.2.0 is the release for F16 that is imminent right? 14:49:01 or do you think you can add this quickly enough to make the F16 image that's about to go out the door? 14:49:02 oh, right... 14:49:16 i was thinking of 2.2 as the f17 release 14:49:20 ok 14:49:22 so 2.3 then 14:49:43 ack 14:49:45 jboggs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753303 is done right? 14:49:54 that should be pulled back to 2.2.0? 14:50:20 also 753309 goes hand in hand with the 3rd party plugins, so reassign to jbogss and move to 2.3.0 14:50:31 yes other than the encrypted swap part that needs to be pulled in but that a couple lines and its mostly done now 14:50:59 jboggs: ok get that done, that's now a blocker for 2.2.0 release 14:51:26 mburns: 753215 should be doable along with the matahari stuff 14:51:47 will do 14:52:07 pmyers: ack 14:52:53 753296 is needinfo, but i'm not sure who we need info from 14:52:56 FIPS mode 14:53:05 not critical for 2.3.0 14:53:20 i'll put it for 2.3.0 and defer if necessary 14:53:26 put it for 2.4.0 14:53:32 i don't even want to distract us with it for now :) 14:53:38 ok, 2.4.0 it is 14:53:48 753304 should be trivial 14:54:03 2.3.0 14:54:03 753306 is nebulous and therefore we're not doing it yet 14:54:16 753313 is not important 14:54:20 ah wait nevermind 14:54:24 that one _is_ important 14:54:54 2.3.0 for 753313 and 2.4.0 for 753306 14:55:52 what about 753298? 14:55:54 753298 i think has some strong interest from some groups, so i'll flag for 2.3 and push back to get them to work on it 14:55:58 jboggs were you working on that? 14:56:13 right 14:56:13 no, that was aliguori and his guys 14:56:16 ok 14:56:16 havent touched it yet 14:56:24 we should get aliguori and his team to do the work here 14:56:35 so assign to aliguori and see if they'll take it 14:56:58 675988 and 753308 are dups 14:57:04 close one of them and target the other one for 2.4.0 14:57:06 need to be in python since we've switched 14:57:12 it's not important enough for 2.3.0 to spend time on it now 14:58:54 ok last one 753314 14:59:28 i think 2.3 for that one 14:59:33 with possible push to 2.4 14:59:34 ok 15:00:34 #info bug planning for future feature bugs 15:00:46 ok, anything else for this meeting? 15:00:51 #topic open discussion 15:01:07 http://goo.gl/alPU4 15:01:19 756136 needs 2.2.0 target 15:01:41 as does 758689 15:02:02 eh 15:02:06 * aliguori reads up 15:02:15 aliguori: i actually assigned to rmm not you :) 15:02:36 oh 15:02:37 * aliguori ignores 15:02:38 :-D 15:03:19 mburns: 750662 is 2.3 as well 15:03:20 for jboggs 15:03:54 ack 15:04:07 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481611 is jboggs related to the 3rd party plugins 15:04:35 pmyers: that one should just be a test to make sure size doesn't increase 15:04:45 ack 15:04:47 but edit-livecd wasn't in livecd-tools 15:04:57 i fixed that years ago :) 15:05:04 then retest and close 15:05:07 (bug filed already) 15:05:18 jboggs: yeah, but that was in the bash version, wasn't it? 15:05:25 and edit-livecd is python now? 15:05:44 is was the one huff wrote i think 15:06:01 ok, well, test and close should be all it takes 15:06:19 selinux policy subpkg i set for 2.3.0 (751830) 15:06:30 ok 15:06:35 so thought is that we have too much for 2.3.0 now 15:06:39 it's not likely to get done 15:06:46 but we do have the correct assignments 15:06:47 so 15:06:57 jboggs and mburns please both take some of these and push to 2.4.0 or beyond 15:07:11 so that we have a realistic set of things we can get done for 2.3.0 15:07:21 pmyers: lets leave versions as they are for right now 15:07:25 k 15:07:29 and i'll take a pass this week at priorities 15:07:34 then we'll work from there 15:07:38 ok 15:07:59 always pick off the high prio ones first and when we hit the deadline, we can push to the next version 15:08:04 ack 15:08:20 pmyers: 749192 15:08:31 i don't know that we need anything here, do we? 15:09:03 if vdsm is going to use an ovirt user, shouldn't it be creating it? 15:09:23 yeah 15:09:33 i think so but talk to vdsm team to make sure 15:09:34 ok, i'll close 15:09:40 well maybe move to vdsm 15:09:41 vs close 15:09:55 i'll ping abaron first then and see what he thinks 15:10:01 k 15:10:43 ok, anything else for this meeting? 15:11:12 going once.... 15:11:20 twice.... 15:11:25 gone.... 15:11:36 thanks everyone! 15:11:39 #endmeeting