14:00:21 <sgallagh> #startmeeting OpenLMI Public IRC Meeting (2013-12-09)
14:00:21 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jan  6 14:00:21 2014 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:21 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:00:25 <sgallagh> #meetingname OpenLMI Public IRC Meeting
14:00:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'openlmi_public_irc_meeting'
14:00:28 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh tsmetana jsafrane rdoty
14:00:28 <zodbot> Current chairs: jsafrane rdoty sgallagh tsmetana
14:00:34 <sgallagh> #info Meetings are recorded and will be posted on www.openlmi.org. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the reviews of the participant's employer.
14:00:37 <sgallagh> #topic Roll Call
14:00:41 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
14:00:43 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
14:00:45 <rnovacek> .fas rnovacek
14:00:46 <zodbot> rnovacek: rnovacek 'Radek Novacek' <rnovacek@redhat.com>
14:01:23 <jsafrane> .fas jsafrane
14:01:23 <zodbot> jsafrane: jsafrane 'Jan Šafránek' <jsafrane@redhat.com>
14:01:57 <tsmetana> .fas tsmetana
14:01:59 <zodbot> tsmetana: tsmetana 'Tomas Smetana' <tsmetana@redhat.com>
14:03:01 * sgallagh waits two more minutes for anyone else to filter in
14:04:57 <sgallagh> Ok, let's get started
14:05:04 <sgallagh> #topic Happy New Year
14:05:12 <sgallagh> Welcome back, everyone.
14:05:37 <sgallagh> I hope you're all rested up, because 2014 is going to be very busy :)
14:06:10 <sgallagh> #topic Progress on OpenLMI 1.0.1
14:07:14 <sgallagh> So, when we shut down 2013, we were close to a 1.0.1 release, but we still had a few issues holding us up. We agreed to defer the release to early January.
14:07:32 * tsmetana looks up the links
14:08:14 * sgallagh tries to find the new date in the previous logs
14:08:34 <tsmetana> sgallagh: there are two tickets in the trac on 1.0.1
14:08:50 <tsmetana> https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/193
14:08:52 <tsmetana> https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/183
14:09:18 <tsmetana> ...and 4 closed ones
14:09:21 <sgallagh> 183 is a task that shouldn't block the release.
14:09:26 <tsmetana> ok
14:09:50 <miminar> 193 is fixed, I'll close it
14:09:57 <tsmetana> miminar: thanks.
14:10:41 * tsmetana stares at the "NEEDS_TRIAGE" pile...
14:10:54 <sgallagh> miminar, jsafrane, rnovacek: All three of you had been working on last-minute blockers when we parted, IIRC.
14:10:59 <sgallagh> Can you remind me what they were?
14:11:10 <sgallagh> tsmetana: Yes, the next item on my agenda is bug triage
14:11:16 <sgallagh> I think we really need to go through that list today.
14:11:22 <sgallagh> Good way to start the year
14:11:32 <jsafrane> I don't think I have anything urgent
14:12:36 <rnovacek> as far as I remember, I was working on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042718
14:12:41 <miminar> I think, that 193 was the only blocker I had
14:12:58 <rnovacek> which is fixed in rhel7
14:13:06 <tsmetana> miminar: no worries... we are about to triage the tickets now.
14:13:28 <sgallagh> rnovacek: And presumably backported to the stable tree?
14:13:36 <sgallagh> *stable upstream tree
14:13:48 <rnovacek> and I don't know how to handle this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998366
14:13:58 * sgallagh looks
14:13:59 <rnovacek> sgallagh: it should be, I'll doublecheck
14:14:08 <sgallagh> Thanks
14:14:29 <sgallagh> As a general rule, I'd like to make sure any patches we put into RHEL goes to the upstream stable tree *first*
14:14:39 <sgallagh> (Security bugs being the exception, of course)
14:15:46 <sgallagh> rnovacek: That bug looks like it'll require more processing time than we should probably spend in this meeting.
14:16:06 <sgallagh> Can you please clone it to the upstream Trac so that we can at least triage and assign it a milestone there?
14:16:16 <rnovacek> sgallagh: sure, will do
14:16:31 * sgallagh feels it will be easier to schedule things if we organize them in one place, and Trac seems like the best place for that.
14:17:24 <sgallagh> Given that this sounds like a limited risk (happening only on shutdown or possibly suspend), I'd suggest that it should not block a 1.0.1 release.
14:17:51 <sgallagh> So unless anyone else has serious issues they're still working on, we can probably release today or tomorrow. Does that sound accurate?
14:18:35 <rnovacek> https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/198
14:19:11 <sgallagh> rnovacek: Thank you
14:20:46 <sgallagh> I'll take that as an affirmative
14:20:47 <sgallagh> #info OpenLMI 1.0.1 is code-complete for release.
14:20:59 <sgallagh> #topic Bug Triage
14:21:16 <jsafrane> I was looking at storage bugs, 1.0.1 it can be released
14:21:28 <sgallagh> So, we've got 47 bugs in needs-triage
14:21:54 <sgallagh> jsafrane: Sorry, did you mean to say there are storage bugs that should block a release?
14:22:32 <jsafrane> sgallagh: no, I was looking at BZ if there is anything I don't remember and there is nothing blocking there
14:23:08 <sgallagh> Ok, good.
14:23:13 <sgallagh> Thanks for clarifying
14:24:38 <sgallagh> While I realize this may take a while, shall we go through each of these 47 tickets? Or would we prefer to do a quick pass and nominate some and then tsmetana and I can triage the remainder outside of the meeting?
14:25:59 <tsmetana> we can start now with the components whose maintainers are present here
14:26:37 <sgallagh> Ok, so let's go through them in the order listed in https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/report/9
14:27:10 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/141 - [wiki] Incomplete howto documentation - firewall setup
14:27:46 <sgallagh> Ok, so for issues on the wiki or other non-code issues, I suggest we probably want to create a new milestone with no completion date.
14:28:08 <tsmetana> sgallagh: i'll assign this on to myself (rrakus has left the company...)
14:28:23 <jsafrane> I think we already document firewall setup at http://www.openlmi.org/QuickStart
14:28:34 <sgallagh> #info tsmetana to self-assign
14:28:51 <sgallagh> Ah, right. This probably just never got closed.
14:28:52 <sgallagh> #undo
14:28:52 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2ea8bcd0>
14:29:04 <sgallagh> #info Ticket should be closed.
14:29:08 <tsmetana> sgallagh: good. that one was easy.
14:29:14 * tsmetana goes to close it.
14:29:25 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/176 - Create X509v3 certificates for Pegasus
14:30:22 <sgallagh> Patches for this one are submitted upstream. The approach appears to be approved, but the patches have not yet been committed upstream.
14:30:36 <sgallagh> I'd classify this as an OpenLMI 1.1.0 target.
14:30:42 <tsmetana> sgallagh: ok.
14:30:50 <jsafrane> I think we're waiting for new Pegasus releases here, hard to guess when it's released
14:30:58 <sgallagh> tsmetana: Are you going to make the Trac edits or shall I?
14:31:05 <sgallagh> (Just so we don't trip over each other)
14:31:06 <tsmetana> sgallagh: i'll do that
14:31:10 <sgallagh> Thanks
14:31:27 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.1.0
14:31:39 <rdoty> Do we have a BZ to address simplified loading of certificates into the client?
14:31:46 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/56 - CIMOMs should find present providers when installed
14:31:56 <sgallagh> rdoty: yes
14:32:38 <sgallagh> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041555
14:32:47 <sgallagh> rdoty: ^^
14:32:48 <jsafrane> our recent openlmi-mof-register should be able to re-register all providers to different CIMOM, I am just not sure it's documented anywhere
14:32:57 <tsmetana> sgallagh: as for the #56 1.1.0: it needs changes in the cimom packages
14:33:17 <tsmetana> sgallagh: next fedora might be a good target
14:33:22 <sgallagh> tsmetana: Ok, sounds good to me. I'm fine with that, since we've standardized on Pegasus anyway
14:33:32 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.1.0
14:33:33 <jsafrane> ah, and yes, we need to modify sfcb provider packages
14:33:46 <tsmetana> jsafrane: yes. those too...
14:34:02 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/98 - What would the SELinux team need to do to get SELinux to work in this environment.
14:34:34 <jsafrane> This is long-time RFE, basically a new provider
14:34:55 <jsafrane> openlm 1.1.0 at the earliest
14:35:32 <sgallagh> rdoty: From your perspective, is this important for 1.1.0 or can it wait until 1.2.0?
14:35:58 <rdoty> sgallagh: I'd like to see it in 1.1.0
14:36:15 <rdoty> We know that most people turn off SELinux; we need to support this in LMI
14:36:53 <sgallagh> My recommendation: split this into two tickets: one for enable/disable SELinux and one for additional capabilities.
14:37:14 <sgallagh> Consider enable/disable as a blocker for 1.1.0 and other features as nice-to-have/eligible to defer.
14:38:10 <rdoty> Enable/disable/query
14:38:13 <sgallagh> (enable/permissive/disable, of course)
14:38:33 <sgallagh> rdoty: Sorry, thought that was implicit
14:38:52 <rdoty> It is implicit; wanted to make it explicit
14:38:53 <tsmetana> jsafrane: shouldn't it be split into even more tickets? we need to start supporting selinux labelling in networking, storage, even processes
14:39:08 <tsmetana> those are all separate providers.
14:40:13 <sgallagh> tsmetana: ok, I should have phrased that as "one ticket for 1.1.0, one or more tickets optionally for later releases)
14:40:20 <tsmetana> sgallagh: ah. ok.
14:40:29 <jsafrane> tsmetana: yes, we can split it into more per-provider tickets.
14:40:57 <sgallagh> Ok, let's keep 56 as the base provider ticket
14:41:01 <jsafrane> there is a question if netstat-like functionality is necessarily part of networking provider or a new one
14:41:33 <sgallagh> #info Ticket will be split into multiple efforts. Ticket 56 should be used for creating an enable/disable/permissive/query-state provider.
14:42:01 <rdoty> sgallagh: I don't see where BZ 1041555 addresses moving the certificate from the managed system to the client system.
14:42:16 <sgallagh> jsafrane: Can we table that discussion for now? I think it's a tangent.
14:42:36 <sgallagh> rdoty: It doesn't and cannot. Let's discuss this later.
14:42:47 <rdoty> OK
14:42:58 <sgallagh> #undo
14:42:59 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2e97e310>
14:43:08 <sgallagh> #info Ticket will be split into multiple efforts. Ticket 98 should be used for creating an enable/disable/permissive/query-state provider.
14:43:13 <sgallagh> (wrong ticket number)
14:43:28 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/120 - Document how to build/install/test openlmi
14:43:47 <jsafrane> sgallagh: 'table' as postpone? yes, let's postpone the networking discussion
14:44:05 <sgallagh> jsafrane: Sorry, yes. Colloquialism for postponing.
14:44:39 <jsafrane> (my dictionary says that in GB it means 'propose for discussion' and 'dismiss' in US :)
14:44:59 <sgallagh> jsafrane: Well, that's confusing...
14:45:17 <sgallagh> Ok, so I think we've got Build and Install pretty well covered in current docs.
14:45:30 <sgallagh> Testing and debugging needs a little work on the wiki
14:45:42 <sgallagh> Shall we shunt this to the wiki milestone and move on?
14:46:32 <jsafrane> ok
14:46:33 <sgallagh> #info Move to "wiki" milestone
14:46:47 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/127 - [RFE] OpenLMI should configure PAM stack to avoid remote attacks
14:47:37 <tsmetana> we need the "wiki" milestone...
14:48:02 <sgallagh> tsmetana: Just added it now
14:48:16 <tsmetana> sgallagh: thanks!
14:48:17 <sgallagh> This (PAM stack) should really be a distribution bug.
14:48:47 <jsafrane> I don't know much about pam config, if it's just patching /etc/pam.d/wbem, then let's do it even in RHEL 7
14:49:08 <sgallagh> We should update the /etc/pam.d/wbem file as described
14:49:23 <sgallagh> Let's assign that one to me. I know PAM.
14:49:33 <tsmetana> ok. milestone?
14:49:38 <sgallagh> I'd like to suggest that we probably want this in 1.0.1 (which I think is what jsafrane just said)
14:49:41 <sgallagh> I'll do it today.
14:50:00 <jsafrane> sgallagh: are we going to rebase rhel7 packages to 1.0.1?
14:50:29 <sgallagh> jsafrane: I believe we are, yes.
14:50:43 <tsmetana> can we call it "rebase"?
14:50:44 <sgallagh> even if we don't get the actual rebase, we will be shipping code that is identical
14:51:22 <sgallagh> But I am pretty sure sct said we were approved for a rebase if we get it in before the next snapshot
14:51:33 <sgallagh> I'll double-check on that today.
14:53:00 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.0.1
14:53:15 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to submit patches today
14:53:20 <jsafrane> sgallagh: ok, we'll discuss it internally, let's continue with the meeting
14:53:41 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/173 - dirname() is not thread safe
14:54:12 <jsafrane> that's IMO 1.1.0 ticket
14:54:34 <sgallagh> I agree
14:55:10 <tsmetana> ok
14:55:10 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.1.0
14:55:25 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/177 - lmiwbem client
14:55:40 <sgallagh> This is the C rewrite of pywbem
14:55:48 <sgallagh> Clearly 1.1.0 target
14:55:55 <jsafrane> phatina is making some progress, I guess 1.1.0 at the earliest
14:55:57 <sgallagh> I'd also suggest that we declare it a blocker for 1.1.0
14:56:27 <sgallagh> The performance impact of pywbem is significant
14:56:42 <sgallagh> Probably to the degree that it may impact adoption
14:57:15 <rdoty> Is a full rewrite going to be done for 1.1.0, or whill this be an ongoing, incremental effort?
14:57:33 <sgallagh> rdoty: It's all-or-nothing
14:57:42 <tsmetana> rdoty: it needs to be finished in 1.1.0
14:57:56 <rdoty> OK
14:58:15 <sgallagh> #info Rewrite of pywbem in C is a blocker for OpenLMI 1.1.0
14:58:29 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/195 - LMIShell Scripts: Networking
14:58:58 <rnovacek> I'm working on it, should be finished rather soonish
14:59:01 <sgallagh> How do we want to handle lmishell script milestones?
14:59:16 <tsmetana> rnovacek: i'll assign it to you and... 1.0.1?
14:59:18 <sgallagh> Should we be tying them to the core milestones?
14:59:46 <sgallagh> Perhaps we should have a "Scripts 1.0.1" milestone?
14:59:57 <sgallagh> Since they'll probably trail the provider releases a little bit
15:00:59 <jsafrane> fine for me
15:01:34 <sgallagh> BTW, I've just added an "OpenLMI 1.0.2" milestone as well, for anything we plan to include in the stable branch but don't think is needed for the imminent release.
15:02:03 <sgallagh> jsafrane: What is fine for you?
15:02:15 <tsmetana> sgallagh: yep. about the "Scripts X.Y.Z" milestones... wouldn't that be a bit confuxing?
15:02:21 <tsmetana> *confusing
15:02:47 <sgallagh> tsmetana: I'm fine if we want to consider them a matched set and just use one milestone.
15:02:57 <jsafrane> sgallagh: scripts released slightly after providers
15:03:00 <sgallagh> However, I'd suggest 1.0.2 for rnovacek's networking scripts in that case
15:03:09 <sgallagh> I don't think it needs to block 1.0.1
15:11:24 <sgallagh> (Read: "patches welcome")
15:11:28 <tsmetana> sgallagh: or 1.1.0 low-prio... if time allows.
15:12:00 <sgallagh> tsmetana: If you want to put it in 1.1.0 as "minor", I won't fight you on it.
15:12:07 <sgallagh> I expect it'll get bumped out later.
15:12:12 <tsmetana> sgallagh: ok. i'll do that for now.
15:12:30 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at minor priority for OpenLMI 1.1.0, eligible to be further deferred.
15:12:47 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/99 - Hello World/Hello Universe
15:13:36 <rdoty> Whenever someone new wants to write a Provider we have a lot of support questions
15:13:37 <sgallagh> This is important for increasing our contributor base, but I'm not sure it should be tied directly with an upstream milestone
15:13:41 <rdoty> This should help
15:14:11 <sgallagh> New milestone: "Developer Onboarding Enhancements"?
15:14:31 <rdoty> Hmm, milestone or sub-project?
15:14:51 <jsafrane> we have https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/wiki/ProviderTutorial
15:14:52 <tsmetana> imo. the "small" openlmi providers are the best hello-world examples.
15:15:00 <jsafrane> and https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/wiki/CimProviderHowto
15:15:29 <sgallagh> tsmetana: Perhaps we should create a walk-through of how to build one of our existing small providers on the wiki
15:15:42 <rdoty> Which one?
15:16:03 <rdoty> If someone wanted to use an existing provider as a template, how much would they need to delete and modify?
15:16:08 <sgallagh> Hmm, maybe take the CimProviderHowto and make it less generic
15:16:23 <sgallagh> i.e. copy it and duplicate it for e.g. the power provider
15:16:53 <tsmetana> sgallagh: yes. power of fan can serve as examples.
15:16:55 <rdoty> We don't want to force people to start from scratch; they need a starting point they can build and then hack up to do what they need
15:18:10 <tsmetana> rdoty: and that might very well be our own code.
15:18:32 <sgallagh> Let's not design the solution during the triage.
15:18:43 <rnovacek> tutorial + howto + existing providers seems pretty good to me
15:19:21 <tsmetana> sgallagh: "wiki edit" milestone?
15:19:21 <sgallagh> Shall we shunt this to "Wiki Edits" for now?
15:19:26 <tsmetana> ack
15:19:26 <rdoty> tutorial + howto + existing providers + packaging
15:19:37 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at Wiki Edits
15:19:53 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/102 - Power Management Scriptons
15:20:05 <tsmetana> rnovacek: ^^ :)
15:20:23 <rnovacek> Scripts milestone
15:20:23 <rdoty> And ticket 196 LMIShell Scripts: Power
15:20:55 <sgallagh> #info This and ticket 196 targeted at "OpenLMI Scripts" milestone
15:21:13 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/157 - Investigate websocket protocol for inidications
15:21:47 <sgallagh> This looks like it would be very useful to have in a complex routing environment
15:22:04 <sgallagh> But it might be difficult to pull off.
15:22:11 <jsafrane> it's also prerequisite for any cockpit integration.
15:22:28 <tsmetana> jsafrane: haven't you looked at the websockets already?
15:22:33 <sgallagh> 1.1.0, possibly deferred but no further than 1.2.0?
15:22:41 <jsafrane> it doesn't need to be part of Pegasus, it can be standalone webscoket - CIM proxy
15:22:58 <jsafrane> tsmetana: no, I haven't looked at websocket, that's why I wrote the ticket
15:23:30 <tsmetana> ah. sorry... i know we talked about it...
15:24:02 <tsmetana> however... when do we want to start integrating with cockpit?
15:24:30 <sgallagh> The sooner the better
15:24:49 <sgallagh> Let's call it 1.1.0/major and note that if it doesn't make the cut, it automatically becomes a 1.2.0 blocker.
15:24:53 <sgallagh> Sound reasonable?
15:26:51 <jsafrane> sounds a bit tight to me...
15:27:29 <sgallagh> 1.2.0 is likely to be 4-6 months after 1.1.0
15:27:35 <tsmetana> jsafrane: 1.1.0 deadline is in september
15:27:40 <tsmetana> (currently)
15:28:32 <jsafrane> ok then
15:29:30 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at major for OpenLMI 1.1.0. Note that if it does not make 1.1.0, it is escalated to blocker for 1.2.0.
15:29:45 <sgallagh> #info Needed for integration with the Cockpit Project.
15:29:57 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/172 - Structured Logging in OpenPegasus
15:30:43 <sgallagh> I'm fine with tossing this one into "Postponed" indefinitely.
15:31:03 <jsafrane> +1
15:31:07 <tsmetana> yes.
15:31:37 <sgallagh> #info Drop into the "Postponed" milestone. Patches welcome.
15:31:50 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/178 - HelloWorld for Indications
15:32:09 <tsmetana> hmm... phatina was working on something...
15:32:22 <sgallagh> No, that was me
15:32:23 <sgallagh> https://github.com/sgallagher/openlmi-demo/blob/master/lmishell_indication/indication_demo.lmi
15:32:27 <sgallagh> Complete :)
15:33:12 <tsmetana> great. i meant http://www.openlmi.org/sites/default/files/doc/client/lmishell/0.9/indications.html but it's not exactly that.
15:33:13 <sgallagh> We may want to incorporate this example into the docs somewhere
15:33:52 <sgallagh> 1.0.1 and merge in this example to the documentation?
15:34:43 <tsmetana> ok. where does it fit?
15:35:16 <sgallagh> Maybe at the end of http://www.openlmi.org/sites/default/files/doc/client/lmishell/0.9/indications.html as a detailed example?
15:35:31 <sgallagh> I tried to be pretty wordy with the comments to make it a useful example.
15:35:43 <tsmetana> sgallagh: what about adding the script to the sources of the tools and provide a link to it from the documentation?
15:35:58 <sgallagh> That's fine with me too.
15:36:31 <sgallagh> #info Example script will be merged into the openlmi-tools repo and linked from the documentation. Target at OpenLMI 1.0.1.
15:36:50 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/188 - Documentation Enhancement - define common conventions on relevant pages
15:37:31 <sgallagh> I think the general request here is that certain common patterns are not explained in all places that they are used.
15:37:59 <sgallagh> Does Sphinx permit us to have a #include or similar that we could use to drop in an explanation of the 'c' and 'ns' variables?
15:40:46 <miminar> sgallagh: that should be possible, phatina has already made some overrides for example rendering
15:41:10 <sgallagh> Ok, so let's look at doing this for 1.0.2
15:41:26 <tsmetana> and my biggest concern is whom to assign the ticket to...
15:41:40 <sgallagh> Doc cleanup is worth doing in the stable branch, but I wouldn't hold up 1.0.1 for it
15:41:59 <tsmetana> => "minor"
15:42:03 <tsmetana> ?
15:42:32 <sgallagh> tsmetana: trivial
15:42:39 <tsmetana> k
15:43:05 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/128 - Test with IPv6
15:43:34 <sgallagh> Can we close this? I assume that RH QE is testing IPv6 for RHEL
15:43:56 <tsmetana> mmnt...
15:45:00 <tsmetana> sgallagh: so what about assigning it to rhack and let him close the ticket eventually?
15:45:17 <sgallagh> WFM
15:45:44 <sgallagh> Leave it in "NEEDS_TRIAGE" for now, then?
15:46:04 <tsmetana> ok
15:47:17 <sgallagh> #info Reassign to rhack to confirm that IPv6 testing is being done. Leave in NEEDS_TRIAGE for now.
15:47:30 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/84 - Add locale provider
15:48:13 <sgallagh> 1.1.0/minor? I'd put this alongside the date/time provider in terms of usefulness.
15:48:20 <tsmetana> seems to be overlapping with #83 a bit
15:48:26 <tsmetana> yes.
15:48:44 <sgallagh> #info Target at minor priority for 1.1.0
15:48:58 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/145 - [account] use static filters
15:49:22 <sgallagh> Was assigned to rrakus, who owns the account provider now?
15:50:35 <tsmetana> sgallagh: tbzatek
15:51:11 <sgallagh> I'm not sure what this request means, so I'll trust your judgement here. Where does it belong?
15:52:06 <tsmetana> those are the indications filters. tbzatek has alredy made some changes to the code but not sure what exactly
15:53:33 <tsmetana> sgallagh: let's skip this one for the moment. i'll ask tbzatek about it later.
15:53:40 <sgallagh> ok
15:53:55 <sgallagh> #info Reassign to tbzatek, leave in NEEDS_TRIAGE for now
15:54:12 <tsmetana> sgallagh: those are already assigned to tbzatek
15:54:12 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/150 - [account] clear documentation
15:54:28 <sgallagh> Oh, whoops. I misread
15:55:07 <sgallagh> Documentation cleanups. 1.0.2?
15:55:12 <tsmetana> yes.
15:55:23 <sgallagh> #info Target documentation cleanups for 1.0.2
15:55:35 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/115 - Improve error handling of broker functions
15:55:59 <sgallagh> Description is a bit thin...
15:56:15 <sgallagh> This is a very old ticket; any idea if it's still meaningful?
15:58:21 <tsmetana> sgallagh: no idea...
15:58:50 <sgallagh> Let's close it as invalid, then.
15:59:00 <sgallagh> If it's a real issue, I'm sure we'll encounter it again
15:59:07 <sgallagh> Hopefully with more information
15:59:45 <tsmetana> sgallagh: i will go through t the account and indication manager tickets with tbzatek and triage them separately. rrakus wasn't very verbose there.
15:59:56 <sgallagh> Ok, I'll leave it alone, then
16:00:02 <sgallagh> #info Leave in NEEDS_TRIAGE
16:00:23 <sgallagh> #action tsmetana to triage account provider and indication manager tickets with tbzatek
16:00:28 <tsmetana> sgallagh: there are more of them.
16:00:42 <sgallagh> I'll skip over them
16:01:01 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/117 - Error when calling Associators() on LMI_LocalFileSystem when networking providers are not installed
16:01:48 <rnovacek> sgallagh: this one is fixed, but there is still a conceptual issue remaining
16:01:54 <sgallagh> Looks like a real edge case
16:02:00 <sgallagh> rnovacek: What issue?
16:02:37 <rnovacek> sgallagh: CIM_ManagedElement association is used, meaning that calling associators() will trigger whole world enumeration
16:03:04 <sgallagh> Ouch, that sounds like a performance issue waiting to happen.
16:03:14 <sgallagh> Shall we try to clean it up in 1.1.0, then?
16:03:38 <sgallagh> rnovacek: Would you please update the ticket with an explanation of that?
16:03:39 <rnovacek> sgallagh: I'm not sure if fixing it doesn't break API
16:03:45 <rnovacek> sgallagh: will do
16:04:38 <sgallagh> Let's try to address this in 1.1.0. We can delve deeper into the API-stability questions outside of this meeting (which is already quite long...)
16:05:01 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/198 - Power service provider - Possible race condition in code
16:05:22 <sgallagh> Sounds familiar...
16:06:01 <rnovacek> I reported this one on the beggining of this meeting
16:06:09 <sgallagh> We already did this one. Sorry
16:06:11 <sgallagh> #undo
16:06:11 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x2d5be290>
16:06:25 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/142 - journald provider TODO list
16:06:58 <sgallagh> I'd like to see this ticket closed and separate bugs opened for additional functionality.
16:07:29 <tsmetana> sgallagh: this looks like tbzatek's tracking ticket.
16:08:02 <sgallagh> Ok, I'll leave it to you to discuss with him for now
16:08:10 <sgallagh> #info Leaving in NEEDS_TRIAGE for now.
16:08:29 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/187 - openlmi-scripts subpackages should be renamed
16:08:53 <sgallagh> This is the ticket about moving the lmi metacommand and framework into openlmi-tools
16:09:10 <sgallagh> And then using the 'openlmi-scripts' package name as a metapackage for the supported upstream scripts
16:09:16 <tsmetana> 1.1.0
16:09:18 <sgallagh> I'd like to propose this as a 1.1.0 blocker
16:09:34 <tsmetana> ok
16:09:40 <sgallagh> #info Blocker for OpenLMI 1.1.0
16:09:51 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/174 - lmi commands returns 0 on error
16:09:53 <rdoty> sgallagh: what about Power script support; tickets 102 and 196?
16:10:38 <sgallagh> rdoty: What about them? We already triaged those
16:10:52 <rdoty> OK, missed that
16:11:32 <sgallagh> How difficult will it be to change the error code of the lmi metacommand?
16:11:46 <sgallagh> If it's fairly simple, I'd say 1.0.2. If it's more effort, 1.1.0.
16:12:02 <tsmetana> sgallagh: let's put it to 1.0.2
16:12:06 <sgallagh> Ok
16:12:15 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at OpenLMI 1.0.2.
16:12:39 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/194 - LMI Metacommand: System
16:13:04 <sgallagh> Scripts milestone?
16:13:14 <tsmetana> yes. and assign to pschiffe
16:13:19 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at "OpenLMI Scripts" milestone. Assign to pschiffe
16:13:35 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/197 - LMIShell Scripts: User
16:13:43 <sgallagh> Scripts milestone, who should own it?
16:13:57 <tsmetana> sgallagh: tbzatek
16:14:22 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at "OpenLMI Scripts" milestone. Assign to tbzatek
16:14:35 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/114 - Support instantiable services
16:15:13 <sgallagh> This sounds like it's going to need coordination with the systemd developers
16:15:34 <sgallagh> So I'd suggest 1.2.0
16:15:49 <tsmetana> ok. i have no idea.
16:15:52 <sgallagh> With the understanding that we need to approach the systemd guys soon
16:16:08 <sgallagh> So they can get us something we can start using in the september/october timeframe
16:16:12 <tsmetana> tbzatek is quite knowledgeable in the are.
16:16:14 <tsmetana> area
16:17:02 <sgallagh> Shall we leave it alone until your meeting with him, then?
16:17:26 <sgallagh> #info Leaving in NEEDS_TRIAGE, pending input from tbzatek
16:17:39 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/159 - Error getting Linux_ComputerSystem.associators
16:17:50 <tsmetana> i have put that to 1.0.2 and we can eventually shift it
16:18:27 <tsmetana> i meant the #114
16:18:55 <sgallagh> tsmetana: 1.0.2 or 1.2.0?
16:19:12 <tsmetana> sgallagh: 1.0.2 and we'll see.
16:19:17 <sgallagh> ok
16:19:29 <sgallagh> So 159 sounds like a candidate for 1.0.2 to me.
16:19:32 <sgallagh> It's a crash
16:20:17 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at OpenLMI 1.0.2
16:20:40 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/39 - List available updates
16:21:14 <tsmetana> 1.1.0
16:21:15 <sgallagh> 1.1.0 or 1.2.0?
16:21:17 <sgallagh> Ok
16:21:33 <sgallagh> #info Targeted at OpenLMI 1.1.0
16:21:54 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/175 - [Docs] missing c.root.cimv2 in one example
16:21:58 <sgallagh> Trivial 1.0.2?
16:22:13 <tsmetana> yes.
16:22:26 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.0.2 at trivial
16:22:35 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/119 - [Doc] Confusing README in test/
16:23:08 <jsafrane> I'll fix it in 1.0.2
16:23:08 <sgallagh> Minor 1.0.2
16:23:15 <tsmetana> fine
16:23:18 <sgallagh> Looks like the documentation needs some language editing
16:23:25 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.0.2 at minor
16:23:42 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/66 - RFE: create swap
16:24:24 <sgallagh> I'd call swap a moderately low priority.
16:24:39 <sgallagh> It's not something that's often changed after initial installation
16:25:00 <tsmetana> sgallagh: 1.1.0 minor?
16:25:31 <sgallagh> ack
16:25:38 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.1.0 at minor
16:25:54 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/67 - RFE: create PReP Boot and BIOS boot partitions
16:25:59 <sgallagh> Same?
16:26:01 <tsmetana> yes
16:26:23 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.1.0 at minor
16:26:34 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/82 - RFE: SCSI scan
16:26:56 <tsmetana> 1.1.0 major
16:27:04 <sgallagh> #info Targeted for OpenLMI 1.1.0 at major
16:27:16 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/103 - LMI_StorageJob should provide a DeviceID as output data
16:28:07 <tsmetana> 1.1.0?
16:28:15 <jsafrane> hmm, I think it's already implemented
16:28:16 <sgallagh> I reported this, so I'm biased, but I think it would simplify writing storage scripts
16:28:34 <tsmetana> 1.0.1 then? :)
16:28:50 <sgallagh> ack
16:29:11 <sgallagh> #info Believed to be already implemented. Targeting at OpenLMI 1.0.1 to verify and close.
16:29:25 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/179 - Documentation for lmishell indications needs more detail on unique listener names
16:29:48 <sgallagh> Oops, this should be closed. It was submitted.
16:30:00 <sgallagh> #info Closed and submitted in OpenLMI 1.0.1
16:30:15 <sgallagh> #info Same for 180
16:30:34 <sgallagh> #topic https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/184 - LMIShell Registering an indication twice fails
16:31:05 <sgallagh> Patch for master is believed to fix this. Needs a backport to 1.0.1 IMHO
16:31:19 <tsmetana> ok
16:31:23 <sgallagh> Given the effect of this bug, I'd call this a blocker to 1.0.1
16:31:46 <tsmetana> ok
16:32:12 <sgallagh> #info Backport from master to stable branch needed. Targeting as a blocker to OpenLMI 1.0.1.
16:32:25 <sgallagh> And that's the last of the NEEDS_TRIAGE bugs.
16:32:42 <tsmetana> sgallagh: thank you very much
16:32:58 <sgallagh> Thank you to everyone who sat through this and helped
16:33:13 <sgallagh> From here on out, we should do a triage each week, but they'll be much shorter :)
16:33:41 <sgallagh> #topic Other Items
16:33:53 <sgallagh> #info Future public IRC meetings will include (shorter) triage sessions
16:34:10 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
16:34:22 <sgallagh> Any items for Open Floor? Otherwise I'll close the meeting in two minutes.
16:34:29 <sgallagh> Thank you very much for your patience today.
16:36:18 <sgallagh> #endmeeting