| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-08-08 | |||
| 15:50:04 | sdague | which is why it's in separate repo | |
| 15:50:18 | sdague | and I don't see reasons for that to change | |
| 15:50:27 | sdague | especially as they have a very different target site | |
| 15:52:30 | cdent | part of the issue may have been that having two api-ref-style jobs publishing from the same repo means that the second job needs to have some customizations, and if (I’m not sure if this is even desired?) the placement-api-ref directory was going to move under doc/source we’d wait until after all the pending changes merged before doing that | |
| 15:52:47 | cdent | that was based on the apparently very bad assumption that the pending docs reviews would merge much faster | |
| 15:53:13 | cdent | but mostly I don’t actually know that much of what’s going on: avolkov had that ball and I lost track of it | |
| 15:56:02 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/service-types-authority master: Add placement service https://review.openstack.org/462140 | |
| 15:59:18 | sdague | I think things are going to be really goofy to try to put api-ref under doc/source | |
| 15:59:27 | sdague | and I would generally advise against that | |
| 15:59:37 | sdague | api-guide could probably move | |
| 16:01:05 | cdent | sdague: yeah, I’m really grasping at lose straws of memory here and since I think avolkov may be less around now than he was before, we may be able to just come up with a new correct plan and do whatever. I’m not clear what that should be. | |
| 16:02:05 | sdague | cdent: ok. Well I'm around this week but then gone for 2. So if you want assistance on that bit, getting the publishing patches posted soon would be good | |
| 16:03:54 | cdent | I’m so unanchored that I don’t know where to begin, but can probably resituate myself tomorrow (barring yet more tyre fires in allocations). One concerm was that I thought we didn’t want to publish incomplete docs? | |
| 16:06:34 | sdague | on the api-ref side I kind of thing incomplete is better than none | |
| 16:12:20 | openstackgerrit | Dean Troyer proposed openstack/osc-lib feature/osc4: Refactor initialize_app() to allow overriding https://review.openstack.org/491846 | |
| 16:33:21 | cdent | sdague: I found some of the lost context. In https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480991/ dhellmann says to move the placement-api-ref into docs/source | |
| 16:34:30 | cdent | sdague, dhellmann : however I think much of what is said there is confusion over how placement and nova are nearby | |
| 16:34:57 | sdague | yeh | |
| 16:35:56 | sdague | it also doesn't seem to mention developer.openstack.org, as this would implicitely remove that | |
| 16:36:16 | sdague | however the developer experience folks were very very strongly in the camp that it was important that that was a top level construct | |
| 16:38:42 | sdague | and, actually, that ends up making the api-ref versioned per release, which is something we very much don't want to do | |
| 16:38:55 | cdent | very good point | |
| 16:42:40 | sdague | I left a post hoc comment in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/472275/13 | |
| 16:45:50 | cdent | sdague: cool. I’m going to push up a new gate job, which will make note of some of the conversation here and refer back to the abandoned one | |
| 17:01:29 | cdent | sdague: i made a new job, because i was nearly all the way done before I found the abandoned one: https://review.openstack.org/491860 | |
| 17:03:01 | cdent | thanks | |
| 17:39:10 | mordred | cdent, sdague: I haven't read the whole backscroll yet - but one of the issues is that osme of hte tooling currently expects to be able to find "the project" for a given service-type ... and also expects to be able to find the service-type for a given project (the verficiation that docs are going to the right place) | |
| 17:39:51 | mordred | I had punted on sorting that out in my brain a bit - but if we need to sort it out I can re-prioritize my internal ring-buffer ... | |
| 17:41:47 | cdent | Even if we set aside the problem that placement presents in that model, it seems bad to limit a project to just one service-type? | |
| 17:42:17 | cdent | it seem we _can_ have multiple types per project but it sounds like the mental model isn’t that? | |
| 17:48:12 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/osc-lib feature/osc4: Revert "Update UPPER_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for feature/osc4" https://review.openstack.org/489664 | |
| 18:27:06 | dhellmann | cdent, sdague : I expect the topic of the api ref stuff to come up at the ptg on mon/tue with the docs team. I hope you can participate in that conversation. | |
| 18:27:34 | dhellmann | that move was originally supposed to be part of phase 2 of the migration, so if we decide to skip it it's less work for most everyone | |
| 19:02:42 | sdague | dhellmann: sure. I think in some of the docs migration there were missing bits of what's per release and what's master only. And you can't mix those in a single doc tree | |
| 19:03:17 | dhellmann | well, we did acknowledge that, we just didn't necessarily think we "couldn't" mix them | |
| 19:03:46 | dhellmann | huge amounts of the docs don't change from cycle to cycle; this is just one area | |
| 19:04:32 | sdague | but it means you'd have a published pike tree linking to pike version docs that should only have a master existing | |
| 19:04:45 | dhellmann | why "should only"? | |
| 19:04:58 | sdague | because some docs only are supposed to exist on master | |
| 19:05:00 | sdague | like api-ref | |
| 19:05:08 | sdague | by design | |
| 19:05:09 | dhellmann | you're arguing with a tautology | |
| 19:05:31 | dhellmann | what's special about api docs that makes it invalid to publish from branches? | |
| 19:05:46 | sdague | because there should only ever be one copy and it should cover all released api | |
| 19:05:53 | cdent | a microversioned api just exists as a whole | |
| 19:06:01 | cdent | there is no pike, ocata, newton | |
| 19:06:08 | sdague | and if there is more than one copy then you need to backport fixes or have multiple clocks saying different things | |
| 19:06:24 | dhellmann | ok | |
| 19:06:52 | dhellmann | I don't see the big deal in saying "there may be newer docs than this, check your API version" but it's not a big deal to me -- not combining those builds means less work next cycle | |
| 19:07:15 | dhellmann | I'm optimizing for the fact that our doc contributor base is decimated; you have other priorities. | |
| 19:07:35 | sdague | dhellmann: the reason for that was optimizing for small contributor bases | |
| 19:07:52 | sdague | because it removes the need to backport corrections on docs | |
| 19:08:05 | sdague | as there is a single source of truth, and only one publish point | |
| 19:08:09 | dhellmann | I guess I don't agree with the premise that there's any reason to backport doc fixes that are not related to code fixes. | |
| 19:08:16 | dhellmann | but I see your point | |
| 19:08:21 | sdague | dhellmann: because the docs aren't 100% accurate | |
| 19:08:29 | dhellmann | yes, well, welcome to this universe | |
| 19:08:48 | dhellmann | I don't actually care about the api docs myself, so as I said, I'm happy to leave all of that alone. | |
| 19:08:52 | sdague | ok | |
| 19:09:03 | dhellmann | that is, I don't care so much about integrating them that I actually want to have the argument | |
| 19:11:44 | cdent | I think, at least for microversioned systems and for people who are talking to multiple different cloud where they don’t necessarily know the version of the cloud, the main isssue is the multiple clocks. We dont want that in api-ref docs. The bit about backports is less relevant. | |
| 20:24:40 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: WIP: Adapter.get_conf_options(deprecated_opts) https://review.openstack.org/490895 | |
| 20:57:33 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Adapter.get_conf_options(deprecated_opts) https://review.openstack.org/490895 | |
| 21:32:07 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Protect against missing interface attribute https://review.openstack.org/488568 | |
| 21:48:35 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Protect against missing interface attribute https://review.openstack.org/488568 | |
| 21:48:36 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: Adapter.get_conf_options(deprecated_opts) https://review.openstack.org/490895 | |
| 22:43:30 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/keystoneauth master: WIP: Return the endpoint_override from EndpointData https://review.openstack.org/491947 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2017-08-09 | |||
| 01:22:09 | openstackgerrit | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/os-client-config master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/491294 | |
| 04:21:13 | openstackgerrit | Artur Basiak proposed openstack/service-types-authority master: Add monasca-events-api project https://review.openstack.org/490750 | |
| 04:50:52 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add new commands for karbor osc plugin https://review.openstack.org/491416 | |
| 14:09:36 | openstackgerrit | liyi proposed openstack/python-openstacksdk master: Add profile type ops cli https://review.openstack.org/492048 | |
| 14:22:42 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/service-types-authority master: Change default swift name to object-storage https://review.openstack.org/462138 | |
| 14:25:24 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/service-types-authority master: Add and rename monitoring services https://review.openstack.org/487484 | |
| 14:25:48 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/service-types-authority master: Add monasca-events-api project https://review.openstack.org/490750 | |
| 14:38:02 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/service-types-authority master: Add placement service https://review.openstack.org/462140 | |
| 15:40:06 | cmurphy | mordred: efried I had a customer report https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystoneauth/+bug/1709658 to me, it seems like there was some surprising behavior in ksa 2.x that was fixed in a backwards incompatible way | |
| 15:40:07 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1709658 in keystoneauth ""Could not find requested endpoint in Service Catalog" when requesting unavailable identity endpoint" [Undecided,New] | |
| 15:41:06 | cmurphy | I will try to look into it later tonight or tomorrow morning if it doesn't nerdsnipe you sooner | |
| 15:41:08 | efried | cmurphy Looking. But given what I was playing around with yesterday, I'm probably not going to be surprised... | |
| 15:42:21 | efried | cmurphy Oh, okay, this has nothing to do with what I saw yesterday. But yeah, this looks like RBB to me. | |
| 16:40:12 | mordred | cmurphy: yay nerdsniping | |
| 16:42:41 | mordred | cmurphy: oh - fun. so - I haven't started digging in to the code yet, but there's an additional weirdness in there, which is OS_IDENTITY_API_VERSION and how that's getting set or not via python-openstackclient | |
| 16:45:19 | mordred | cmurphy: I asked for some additional informatoin in the bug | |
| 18:14:16 | cdent | mordred: you might know this, but anyone else feel free to chime in: Is there a canonical doc somewhere on what the service catalog is and is for? | |
| 18:15:46 | cdent | there’s plenty of stuff near to that, but what I’ve been able to find so far glances off being what I’m looking for | |
| 18:54:37 | mordred | cdent: maybe? can you say that same thing maybe in different words though, I may misunderstand the question | |
| 18:54:57 | cdent | mordred: I can link you to why it matters, one moment | |
| 18:55:17 | cdent | mordred: see the discussion with edleafe here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/491611/ | |
| 18:57:02 | mordred | cdent: hrm. this is deeper and more philosophical | |
| 18:57:09 | mordred | cdent: (and important, obvs) | |
| 18:58:52 | mordred | cdent: I do not believe there is a document that explains service catalog intent at a high level | |
| 18:59:02 | mordred | cdent: but I do believe having such a document would be helpful | |
| 19:00:26 | cdent | “service catalog intent” is the right phrase | |
| 19:01:21 | mordred | yah. I mean, it has a very specific purpose in openstack, but is also completely posible for a deployer to stick other things in it too.sticking other things in it wn't neccessarily mean any tools will know what to do with those things | |
| 19:01:32 | mordred | cdent: also, I'd suggest that we write https://review.openstack.org/#/c/491611/ as more of a sliding scale of recommendations to accomodate things that provide capabilities discovery ... but maybe I should, you know, leave a review comment | |
| 19:02:33 | cdent | a) maybe, b) yes, c) I really wanted to keep this thing as simple as possible and while we don’t currently have a standard for capabilities the “safe” strategy is NO | |
| 19:11:13 | mordred | cdent: totally - and I agree with that broadly - I mostly worry that if we published an API-WG recommendation that is wildly contrary to widespread practice without including accomodation in some manner for how people are doing things today that we run the risk of being disregarded which would be bad | |
| 19:11:40 | mordred | aw. cdent missed my response | |
| 19:59:50 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/keystoneauth master: Parameter to tune mutual authentication in kerberos https://review.openstack.org/455330 | |
| 21:22:48 | mordred | efried: I was working a patch a few seconds ago using the new ksa stuff - and the Adapter _would_not_ actually consume the version arg I was passing it and I was starting to freak out that we'd released a completely broken thing ... | |