15:01:06 #startmeeting 15:01:06 Meeting started Wed Feb 15 15:01:06 2012 UTC. The chair is quaid. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:06 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 15:01:19 #meetingname oVirt weekly sync 15:01:19 The meeting name has been set to 'ovirt_weekly_sync' 15:01:51 #topic Welcoming moments ... 15:01:59 * oschreib here 15:02:03 * dreamreal here 15:04:08 * mburns here 15:05:32 #topic Agenda 15:05:44 sorry, didn't do agenda in advance 15:05:56 some topics: 15:06:11 * Comments & feedback from last week's release 15:06:23 * Any update on next release plan 15:06:51 * Update on workshop 15:06:54 anything else? 15:07:36 ok 15:07:38 sounds good to me 15:07:49 #topic Comments and feedback from 3.0 release 15:08:29 Do we have such? 15:09:29 well, from ourselves? 15:09:36 how did it go? 15:09:42 it wasn't easy :) 15:10:03 I'm going to propuse an official release process in the next few days. 15:11:18 sounds like a good idea 15:11:33 well, it should be really easy. 15:12:13 Set release criteria. branch few weeks before the build, and do a meeting every two days in the last week about blokcers. 15:12:20 since we're here, do you and anyone else want to capture some of what went right/wrong? the process? 15:12:37 ykaul: ^ 15:12:39 mgoldboi: ^ 15:12:48 oschreib: why me? 15:13:02 well, you had some criticism :) 15:13:17 and your opinion is always appreciated. 15:13:39 oschreib: I explicitly refrained from criticism. Especially when it was not very productive. 15:13:58 IMO, the process went well. unfortunately, we discover the process on-the-fly. 15:14:14 and some may say the release critiria was low/not deep enough. 15:14:45 #info Release announcement needs to be fully prepared a few days in advance 15:15:14 i'd argue that release criteria should be set *now* for the next release 15:15:23 and we can tweak as we get closer if necessary 15:15:39 #action oschreib to send an release process offer. 15:15:59 quaid: can I do that without being a chair? ^^ 15:16:03 yes 15:16:24 mburns: yes, but who decide what we can change? 15:16:48 the whole "criteria" idea is the commitment from the component owners. 15:17:00 oschreib: the community in one of review meetings or here 15:17:09 oschreib: we set out a list of what has to work 15:17:27 and if a component owner finds that they're not going to have something ready, then they bring it up here 15:17:50 mburns: it's hard to call a single item 'a list'. IIRC, the criteria was 'run a VM'. But I may be wrong. 15:18:09 and we make a group decision on whether to slip the release to get it in or if we can defer it 15:18:28 ykaul: then we need better release criteria 15:19:09 mburns: indeed, but it has to be set by the development community. I can help and asses whether we meet it or not. 15:19:37 ykaul: agree completely that we need to set it with the dev community 15:20:07 my point was simply that deciding the release criteria 2 weeks before or a few days before release is too late 15:20:29 ok, oschreib is going to post to arch@ with a proposed process and criteria, yes? 15:20:36 mburns: the development community indeed should set it sooner rather than later. 15:20:45 ack 15:21:41 shall we set a deadline to have those finished by? 15:21:47 quaid: oschreib: not really release criteria in that post 15:21:58 mburns: separate posts ok? 15:21:59 but process for setting release criteria 15:22:06 oic 15:22:23 release criteria should be set either in this meeting 15:22:24 then we actually use the process on whatever schedule it uses, etc. 15:22:35 or some separate meeting of dev owners of each component 15:22:43 quaid: right 15:22:46 not possible to do that online? 15:22:51 s/line/list/ 15:22:59 quaid: could be done on list 15:23:16 just want to be sure we are reaching a wide audience with important things 15:23:44 quaid: IMO, an initial meeting with oschreib and dev leads should come up with initial list, then share on list 15:23:52 sounds good 15:24:12 perhaps mgoldboi and ykaul on that initial meeting as well if they have input 15:24:40 mburns: sure 15:25:04 ok, though I think it will be best if we identify people by role than by name 15:25:18 (in the process) 15:25:21 quaid: ack 15:26:34 what else on this topic? 15:27:10 * mburns is good 15:27:21 got to go - will fill in on the details 15:28:04 got to leave to a different meeting as well, sorry 15:28:07 #topic Update on next release schedule and plan 15:28:25 so iirc next release is a special short-one targetted for May? 15:28:53 oh, wait :) 15:28:55 #undo 15:28:55 Removing item from minutes: 15:29:04 * oschreib is back here 15:29:07 forgot about setting some deadline for the process and criteria 15:29:10 sorry, bad workstation 15:29:23 when do we think we can have a process defined? 15:29:37 and start the criteria setting 15:29:46 29 Feb? 15:30:06 * mburns defers to oschreib 15:31:01 quaid: sounds reasonable 15:32:26 lets summorize, since I missed few things. 15:32:47 what should I sent, and to which list? 15:33:11 oschreib: release process, starting with setting release criteria early in the cycle 15:33:14 to arch@ 15:33:18 oschreib: you can see the log in realtime as well: http://ovirt.org/meetings/ovirt/2012/ovirt.2012-01-04-15.01.log.html 15:33:25 I know, 15:33:30 ok :) 15:33:43 but I can't read and write simultaneously :) 15:34:46 good. 15:35:07 about next release- Sounds like end of May should be fine 15:35:08 ok, and it seems reasonable to have a release process defined that includes setting criteria earlier, by 29 Feb? 15:35:24 #agreed End of May for next oVirt release 15:35:52 we'll make sure that works in the process discussion 15:36:11 sure 15:36:33 quaid: for both 15:37:47 we should request that dev leads have release criteria sent to arch@ by Feb 29 15:38:32 #agreed 29 Feb is deadline for setting new release process, to include earlier release criteria setting 15:38:46 mburns: I was going to suggest that but ... 15:38:55 mburns: the process that is undefined should really set that 15:39:02 though we could do it just this one time :) 15:39:25 I'll send the proposal tomorrow :) 15:39:42 quaid: agree that process should set, but i think we already agreed that we need release criteria early, so we can make an exception this time 15:39:53 +1 ok with me 15:40:40 oschreib: do you want to set the date for the next "have release criteria" right now, as an exception to the unwritten process? 15:41:06 no problem with that 15:41:29 i think first draft from dev owners due Feb 29 15:41:45 and final call by ~1-2 weeks after 15:42:00 #agreed First draft of next release criteria due from component owners by 29 Feb 15:42:46 * quaid realizes that his next-topic on agenda was also part of this topic 15:42:52 probably the process will say "we should set the criteria at least two month before" 15:43:03 "...before release" 15:43:10 for a 6 mon cycle? 15:43:45 for a 3 month. 15:44:05 actually, it should be the first item in the list 15:44:09 I'll think of that. 15:44:36 ok 15:44:36 ack, lets put it into the process, and we can work out timing details once we have a draft 15:44:42 yep 15:44:58 anything else on this lively topic? 15:45:27 nothing here. 15:45:32 nope, let's move on 15:45:46 +1000 15:46:20 #topic Beijin workshop update 15:46:24 and that's for me :) 15:46:39 #info Attendee list is about 33% filled 15:47:20 #info Release interest (combined with some workshop interest) has made the website very busy - Friday was busiest day ever, then Monday beat that 15:47:41 #info Folks booking hotels should look at the Shang-ri-la 15:48:02 #link http://www.shangri-la.com 15:48:30 #info We're looking for a place to have an informal reception event on the evening of 21 March 15:48:56 #info Discussion about open workshop schedule is on arch@ovirt.org list, please join in 15:48:59 14[[07Features/RemoteDB14]]4 !N10 02http://www.ovirt.org/w/index.php?oldid=2401&rcid=2475 5* 03Alourie 5* (+1421) 10Created page with " == Remote DB == === Summary === Remote DB feature means working with a Postgres instance on a remote host. === Owner === * Name: [[User:Alourie|..." 15:49:16 #link http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/arch/2012-February/000227.html 15:49:37 Any questions, comments about the workshop? 15:49:46 * quaid will give a minute before moving to close 15:50:06 quaid: any list of presenters/presentations? or is that still TBD? 15:50:26 * mburns is pretty sure node team isn't sending anyone... 15:50:27 that's the schedule topic 15:51:00 ok 15:51:03 Itamar had some ideas for the two-day workshop that I made more generic for the open workshop 15:51:13 and you are right, he put Node in a "probably not" bucket 15:51:59 the two-day workshop schedule may not be generated as openly, since it's more about getting a new set of engineers from two companies comfortable with everything, and that includes being introduced to open collaboration. 15:52:03 (for some, I suppose) 15:52:45 quaid: i think some of the people who do rhev-h testing will be there for the 2-day, so there will be someone there familiar with Node 15:52:53 in other words, I want to let the IBM, Intel, and Red Hat folks doing the workshop to sort out themselves what they want to do, and since it doesn't have much community impact ... 15:53:07 hello 15:53:09 mburns: yes, I've seen the rhev-h folks 15:53:11 http://ranglust.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-engine-jbossas/fedora-16/x86_64/ovirt-engine-jbossas-1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 15:53:23 who provides this ovirt-engine .rpm ? 15:53:25 quaid: ok, that's all i have for questions... 15:53:29 ok 15:53:49 * mburns still has to update ovirt-node presentation for jbrooks to get translated... 15:54:04 dougsland_: I'm going to close the meeting we're just finishing, but your question isn't affected by that 15:54:15 * quaid counts silently to 10 15:54:31 #endmeeting