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