User Tools

Site Tools


BGS Meeting June 22, 2015 - Minutes

5:00 PM <frankbrockners> #startmeeting BGS weekly team meeting
5:00 PM <trozet> i think meetbot isnt working frankbrockners
5:00 PM <wshao> hello, Frank
5:00 PM <fdegir> yes
5:00 PM <frankbrockners> yup - I saw this from Fathi's ealier meeting
5:00 PM <frankbrockners> but wanted to try again :-)
5:01 PM <frankbrockners> let's just pretend that it would work
5:01 PM <frankbrockners> we can still use #info -- makes filtering and creating notes easier...
5:01 PM <frankbrockners> #info Frank Brockners 
5:01 PM <radez> #info Dan Radez
5:01 PM <fdegir> #info Fatih Degirmenci
5:01 PM <arnaud_orange> #info Arnaud Morin
5:02 PM <trozet> #info Tim Rozet
5:02 PM <wshao> #info Weidong Shao
5:02 PM <frankbrockners> #info Agenda for today:
5:03 PM <frankbrockners> anything we should add to the agenda?
5:03 PM → rprakash_ joined (1806bda8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.
5:03 PM <frankbrockners> sounds like this isn't the case....
5:03 PM → JonasB joined (
5:03 PM <frankbrockners> #topic Arno release recap
5:04 PM → narinder joined (~narinderg@
5:04 PM <frankbrockners> just thought that it would be a good idea to do a round-table and gather some learnings
5:04 PM <frankbrockners> i.e. what went well and what did not
5:04 PM <Debra> are you on gotomeeting or have I got the wrong meeting id?
5:04 PM <JonasB> #info Jonas Bjurel
5:04 PM ⇐ narindergupta quit (~narinderg@ Ping timeout: 246 seconds
5:04 PM <frankbrockners> Debra - we're IRC only
5:04 PM <Debra> OK, challenge to show slides then
5:05 PM → RandyLevensalor joined (
5:05 PM <rprakash_> even in irc only on #opnfv-meeting and not #opnfv-bgs
5:05 PM <MR_Sandvine> #info Manuel Rebellon
5:05 PM <frankbrockners> Debra - if you have slides, you could post them to the wiki or send out via email
5:05 PM <trozet> #info I thought the cross project collaboration (functest, octopus) worked very well in the chaos towards release
5:06 PM <frankbrockners> trozet - much agreed. it brought all of us much closer together
5:06 PM <JonasB> #info As said befor alot of good collaboration and engagement.
5:06 PM <trozet> #info we could have had better planning of requirements for the target system earlier in the project
5:07 PM <frankbrockners> I also think that we did well wrt/ deliver per agreed schedule (once we had a plan we pretty much followed it)
5:07 PM <JonasB> #info But we need to structure things differently when we get more projects, more installers, and more complicated functest
5:07 PM <radez> #info agree on the requirements, I feel like we were kinda figuring them out as we went
5:07 PM → amaged_ joined (sid87897@gateway/web/
5:07 PM <JonasB> Agree
5:08 PM <frankbrockners> agreed radez - we pretty much learned as we were crawling forward
5:08 PM <frankbrockners> we should know better for R2
5:08 PM <frankbrockners> this is part of why we need Genesis - aka common requirements
5:08 PM <radez> I think that created frustrations...
5:09 PM <radez> on the other hand we did work together well in spite of having a moving target to hit
5:09 PM <rprakash_> frank you missed Compass from Arno release 2 and Uli wanted me to remind you on that
5:09 PM <JonasB> frankbrockners: I think genesis need to be more than requirements.
5:09 PM <frankbrockners> JonasB: What else do you see needed?
5:10 PM <JonasB> I think genesis going forward either need to dictate how projects need to package their artifacts such that installers can consume them in a generic way, or do the packaging in Genesis
5:11 PM <trozet> JonasB: this topic is release recap
5:11 PM <frankbrockners> JonasB - I like the term "requirement for packaging" a bit better than "dictate"
5:11 PM <JonasB> I also see genesis is the focal point for functest and CI to adress their requirements to.
5:11 PM <trozet> maybe save those comments for later topic
5:11 PM <JonasB> frankbrockners: We can work on wording - sure
5:11 PM <frankbrockners> trozet - good point, let's table the genesis topic for a bit and return to "what went well and where do we need to do better"
5:12 PM <trozet> JonasB: what do you think went well or poorly for Arno?
5:12 PM <frankbrockners> so early articulation of requirements - and common agreement of these requirements is a key one
5:12 PM <frankbrockners> what else?
5:12 PM <rprakash_> Maintenance of Arno should be minimum and not sure as CI too discussed it and so there is some confusion on where genesis stops and ocutopus takes over
5:13 PM <trozet> frankbrockners: the LF lab took a bit of debugging. Not sure how we could have made that more efficient
5:13 PM <frankbrockners> #info LF lab bring up took 4-6 weeks -- would be great to do better next time 
5:13 PM <trozet> maybe a description of the network topology
5:13 PM <trozet> or better communication with LF admins
5:13 PM <trozet> before it is all setup
5:14 PM <trozet> there were layer2 collisions between pod 1 and pod 2
5:14 PM <trozet> we should have informed LF lab to set them up as separate broadcast domains from the beginning
5:14 PM <frankbrockners> yes - and for the next pod (which cisco donates) we'll plan things ahead of time...
5:14 PM <rprakash_> Should we not have more PODs allcated in LF for future work. looks like this shortage of PODs is making things harder
5:14 PM <JonasB> #info So went well: collaboration, engagement, commitment!
5:15 PM <frankbrockners> rprakash_ has a point -- it would have been nice if more of the field labs would have really been available to developers
5:15 PM <fdegir> agree to that
5:16 PM <frankbrockners> let's info that
5:16 PM <fdegir> due to some "development" work going on LF PODs
5:16 PM <fdegir> we can't run stuff properly
5:16 PM <JonasB> #info less well as said: Integration with LF lab, support of LF-lab, clear definition of requirements/use-cases
5:16 PM <frankbrockners> #info it would have been nice if more of the field labs would have really been available to developers - LF should be for deploy/test - less so for development
5:16 PM <fdegir> #info Clarification regarding the purpose of LF lab is needed
5:16 PM <frankbrockners> and we'll improve once we have another POD at the LF - as a common sandbox
5:17 PM <fdegir> #info Is it for development work or the CI
5:17 PM <frankbrockners> fdegir - good point - and we also re-purposed the equipment on the fly 
5:17 PM <JonasB> We cant scale with the static config we have in LF lab, we need to have a MaaS to sort that.
5:17 PM <frankbrockners> additional topics?
5:17 PM <amaged_> I think we need more videos on youtube to explain what the project is, and maybe a demo. A lot of people are still finding it hard to understand what the project is about, so this could fall under documentation.
5:18 PM <frankbrockners> amaged_ agreed - this is "for next steps" (next topic on the agenda)
5:18 PM <rprakash_> Repurposing is finr, but we should havd two more PODS i LF , one for CI and onr for Testing
5:19 PM <frankbrockners> which is also about next steps...
5:19 PM <frankbrockners> any additional topics on "retrospective"
5:20 PM <rprakash_> Frank Uli asked me to remind you to include Compass & Arthur for JoID is installers for Rel 2
5:20 PM <frankbrockners> we have (+) collab & teaming (-) better def. of requirements (-) better doc of LF lab and definition of purpose
5:20 PM <fdegir> #info Another good thing is that we had many people getting their hands dirty with CI
5:20 PM <fdegir> so it is under collab & teaming
5:20 PM <frankbrockners> rprakash_ let's work through the agenda topic by topic
5:21 PM → anac joined (
5:21 PM <fdegir> one more thing to add is to patch the things that caused issues on last day
5:21 PM <frankbrockners> does anyone have feedback about Arno from outside the inner circle?
5:22 PM <fdegir> upstream repos and what is pulled down from where
5:22 PM <frankbrockners> fdegir - agreed
5:22 PM <amaged_> frankbrockners: I tried to search in blogs/tweets but i couldnt find anything more than people talking about its existence.
5:23 PM → chenshuai_ joined (dfa64473@gateway/web/freenode/ip.
5:23 PM <frankbrockners> #info better documentation and understanding of external dependencies 
5:23 PM <JonasB> One thing I think needs to be fixed is a way to increas SNR on the mailing lists.
5:23 PM <arnaud_orange> SNR?
5:23 PM <frankbrockners> signal to noise
5:23 PM <frankbrockners> ratio
5:23 PM <arnaud_orange> agreed
5:24 PM <arnaud_orange> very hard to follow different topics
5:24 PM <frankbrockners> for email tagged BGS that was ok
5:24 PM <JonasB> One could try filtering, but there is a big risk that you miss things as there are weak instructions on how to tag topics
5:24 PM <frankbrockners> but many people don't tag
5:24 PM <frankbrockners> JonasB - very much agreed - tagging does not always work (or you miss important stuff)
5:25 PM <frankbrockners> #info improve communications over email (signal to noise ratio isn't great - project tagging isn't used throughout the community)
5:25 PM <JonasB> I think the only safe way to do it is to create distr lists per topic/project
5:25 PM <frankbrockners> ok... given that we have a bunch of additional topics on the agenda - let's move on
5:25 PM <JonasB> Ok!
5:26 PM <frankbrockners> #topic next steps for BGS
5:26 PM <frankbrockners> what I had in mind here is twofold: (a) how do we define the content of a service release for Arno - what do we need to do from a BGS perspective
5:27 PM <rprakash_> How is BGS perspective on this different from CI?
5:27 PM <frankbrockners> and (b) how do we "finish up" BGS 
5:27 PM <JonasB> Frank, did you start the meeting, it doesnt seem so. topic doesnt work?
5:27 PM <frankbrockners> JonasB: meetbot is dead
5:27 PM <JonasB> Ahh
5:27 PM <frankbrockners> will filter manually later
5:27 PM <frankbrockners> so please continue #topic
5:27 PM <frankbrockners> and #info
5:28 PM <rprakash_> #nfo service release should fix bugs without adding new releases from upstream
5:29 PM <frankbrockners> rprakash_ - good question: from my perspective BGS is "deployment" focused - CI deals more with the packaging and delivery aspect
5:29 PM <frankbrockners> #info while back we had a discussion on what service/maintenance release would mean:
5:30 PM <JonasB> A question, how can we fix issues if we do not pick new minors from upstream?
5:30 PM <arnaud_orange> is it still needed to have such "deployment" focused perspective?
5:30 PM <frankbrockners> JonasB: Should we fix issues from upstream?
5:30 PM <amaged_> frankbrockners: Can we say that BGS will never finish, because there will always be new releases of the key components ? so if things changed, they would reflect on BGS
5:30 PM <arnaud_orange> we need automated ways of doing things
5:30 PM <frankbrockners> or should we rather only fix what is in our control?
5:30 PM <arnaud_orange> I think we should contribute upstream
5:30 PM <arnaud_orange> fix issues
5:31 PM <frankbrockners> arnaud_orange - agreed - but new upstream sources IMHO would mean a new release, instead of a service release
5:32 PM <frankbrockners> IMHO we should only fix what is in our span of control for an "Arno-SR", i.e. bugs in our scripts etc.
5:32 PM <frankbrockners> Thoughts?
5:32 PM <arnaud_orange> agreed
5:33 PM <amaged_> frankbrockners: agreed. This way, it wouldnt be confusing to users. They know the scope of changes, making it easier to spot problems in the components.
5:33 PM <frankbrockners> trozet, radez, JonasB, fdegir - any thoughts?
5:33 PM <JonasB> frankbrockners: We would ultimately have as much from upstream as possible, that also goes for installers.
5:33 PM <rprakash_> #info my undertsnading is BGS was to facilitate first release and if we want to focus on deployment we just support what CI does , but note now we are taking a stand that we deploy whatever CI produces release 1 or 2 or for different installers, is that the BGS goal then?
5:33 PM <arnaud_orange> what I meant was that we should propose upstream fix as well when needed, and made it available only on next release
5:33 PM <trozet> #info yes we should only be fixing bugs for Arno branch
5:33 PM <trozet> #info no upgrades to kilo, etc
5:33 PM <JonasB> So I can see where we need to get a OS service pack in, a patch for OVS, KVM etc.
5:34 PM <JonasB> trozet: Agree - no majors should slip in!
5:35 PM <frankbrockners> How about minors? 
5:35 PM <JonasB> I think it would be strange if we couldnt get security patches in, etc, etc.
5:35 PM <frankbrockners> IMHO we should stay with what we have from upstream. 
5:35 PM <rprakash_> minor, I think that should be at the discreetion of commiters
5:36 PM <frankbrockners> how do we qualify "minor" vs "major"
5:36 PM <rprakash_> once determined that upstream can not fix it sonn or not atall, a mnor work around or fix can be done and may be released to upstrem
5:36 PM <JonasB> ODL Helium SR1->SR2 is a minor. Helium -> Lithium is a major
5:37 PM <frankbrockners> that works for ODL and O/S
5:37 PM <frankbrockners> how about e.g. OVS
5:37 PM <frankbrockners> if we do e.g. 2.3.0 today
5:37 PM <frankbrockners> would anything 2.3.x be ok?
5:38 PM <amaged_> I'm trying to borrow analogies from Kernel releases in Linux and how it relates to Applications.
5:38 PM <RandyLevensalor> +1 for CI and adoption on minor upstream versions.
5:38 PM <wshao> one requirement to the installers is to be able to patch the system for minor(os patches, etc) and possibly upgrade for major
5:38 PM <rprakash_> OVS is linux distros choice we can possibly take linux.x.1 linux.x.2 distros for ovs depending on distro
5:38 PM <JonasB> frankbrockners: I think so, almost all projects have a way to qualify what is a major and what is a minor - they just do it differently.
5:39 PM <rprakash_> frank well said but this is where committers ave freedom to fix what minor is based on uptream
5:39 PM <trozet> frankbrockners: did we ever put out a requirement for OVS version?
5:40 PM <frankbrockners> ok - is everyone ok with including "minor" upgrades from upstream in a service release - but avoid "majors"
5:40 PM <trozet> cant create a post release requirement :)
5:40 PM <rprakash_> +1
5:40 PM <JonasB> +1
5:40 PM → smccann joined (4281f10d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.
5:40 PM <frankbrockners> trozet: there is one on - but I'm not sure it is followed
5:40 PM <RandyLevensalor> Should all installers continue to track the same minor version of OVS and the upstream / common dependencies?
5:41 PM <arnaud_orange> +1
5:41 PM <frankbrockners> RandyLevensalor: That was the original plan - but we have to stay practical, given that we pull from upstream release repos
5:42 PM → snackewm joined (snackewm@nat/intel/x-oywrghuxfqpvotxs)
5:42 PM <rprakash_> #info note every installers tried but based on centos7,7.1 or ubuntu 14.04 they had different ovs and hence the statrt state listed were matcahed as far as p[ossible and changed by different installers to make things work
5:42 PM <frankbrockners> #agree SR for Arno will only include minor updates from upstream but avoid major upstreams. In addition, it'll include bug-fixes to OPNFV provided scripts etc.
5:43 PM <frankbrockners> the second topic in that realm is: When would we plan for having a SR for Arno?
5:43 PM <frankbrockners> I thought that we wait for folks to continue trying Arno
5:44 PM <frankbrockners> and once we have an understanding of the main issues (and things start to repeat themselves) we create a SR
5:44 PM <frankbrockners> so something like late Aug/Sep timeframe...
5:44 PM <frankbrockners> thoughts?
5:45 PM <amaged_> makes sense
5:45 PM <rprakash_> keep it Aug 15th time
5:45 PM <rprakash_> Will give us 8-10 weeks
5:45 PM <frankbrockners> JonasB, trozet?
5:45 PM <JonasB> September is when Fuel will have something for SR1
5:46 PM <rprakash_> OK then lets look at content of SR and then decide on dates
5:46 PM ⇐ chenshuai_ quit (dfa64473@gateway/web/freenode/ip. Quit: Page closed
5:46 PM <trozet> frankbrockners: we probably need at least a few weeks
5:46 PM <trozet> anytime after that is fine
5:46 PM <frankbrockners> so Sept sounds viable
5:46 PM <frankbrockners> #agree high-level target for SR for Arno would be September 2015
5:47 PM <rprakash_> ok lets tale it sept 18th the third week
5:47 PM <rprakash_> should give enough time for everyone to chip in
5:47 PM <frankbrockners> by then we probably also have the new project structure for installer projects in place and can shut down BGS
5:47 PM <frankbrockners> with this I wanted to give the floor to Debra
5:48 PM <frankbrockners> #topic Planning and communication tools for B-River
5:48 PM <frankbrockners> Debra - you were planning to give us an overview
5:48 PM <Debra> frankbrockners thanks
5:48 PM <Debra> slides sent out to mail list
5:49 PM <Debra> slide 2 topic: ARNO retrospective feedback- communication of scope needs improvement
5:49 PM <Debra> especially visibility for new people coming on the project
5:49 PM <Debra> proposed: for high level only, use project box that I will maintain for the community
5:50 PM <Debra> lower level engineering requirements still documented/tracked in spreadsheets or wiki
5:50 PM <Debra> as team usually does
5:50 PM ⇐ sorantis quit ( Ping timeout: 276 seconds
5:50 PM <Debra> Project box has 4 quadrants on 1 page
5:51 PM <Debra> upper left = minimum viable- those things the project will not release without
5:52 PM <Debra> bottom left = working plan- things the team is working on that could be dropped in needed or that have a mild amount of risk. Team is working as if these are in plan
5:52 PM <Debra> If risks not resolved by late milestone (D) (will talk about milestones shortly) then they would be moved to ouplan
5:53 PM ⇐ ildikov quit ( Ping timeout: 252 seconds
5:53 PM <Debra> upper right quadrant = requirements that are at significant risk but would like to get them into the release if possible.
5:54 PM <Debra> If the risks for these are not resolved by an early milestone (C) they go outplan
5:54 PM <Debra> Bottom right is requirements that are outplay- the community has decided no effort will be put into these this release.
5:54 PM <frankbrockners> Debra - makes sense to me to have (a) base, (b) highly desirable, (c) stretch, (d) future..
5:55 PM <Debra> Exactly
5:55 PM <frankbrockners> also looks like the proposed SR process resembles that of other OSS projects (e.g. ODL)
5:55 PM <Debra> To build and maintain this document I will need help from project leads.
5:56 PM <Debra> Since I am still getting to know who does what, would help me if leads send me an email with contact info & which project they lead
5:56 PM <frankbrockners> what I would recommend doing is to have a brief overview in the TSC call - and assemble a group of folks interested in working the topic
5:56 PM <Debra> Yes, we plan TSC call intro of this too
5:56 PM <frankbrockners> there might be talented folks who are not project leads - which you want in the meeting
5:56 PM <frankbrockners> sounds great
5:56 PM <Debra> yes agreed
5:57 PM <Debra> 2nd topic is schedule & milestones
5:57 PM <Debra> Milestone A - statement of intent B-Release participation
5:58 PM <Debra> Milestone B - Per project plan for the B-Release Features and dependencies identified in Jira
5:58 PM <Debra> Milestone C - Sprint planning ready (critical Jira tasks written)
5:58 PM — frankbrockners thinks that we're running out of time
5:59 PM <frankbrockners> Debra - IMHO the topic would really be better covered on a live call with audio
5:59 PM <Debra> Requirements projects: All upstream requirements published
5:59 PM <Debra> Yes, was hoping for that. Didn't realize you had switched to irc only
5:59 PM <frankbrockners> so how about you give a short intro at the TSC - and then schedule a dedicated follow up for folks interested
5:59 PM <Debra> will do
5:59 PM <frankbrockners> that way you get everyones thoughts - also ask for thoughts over email
6:00 PM <frankbrockners> thanks much
6:00 PM <Debra> we knew we will need to have multiple meetings to introduce the thoughts
6:00 PM <frankbrockners> we're pretty much at the top of the hr... 
6:00 PM → HKirksey joined (~Kirklet@
6:00 PM <rprakash_> Just wanted to add that yes we should go with voice besied irc as frank pointed out and we can differe installer stuff for next week
6:00 PM <frankbrockners> unforuntately we did not get to Genesis discussions - but we can do so next week 
6:01 PM <frankbrockners> ok... thanks everyone - and have a great week
6:01 PM <frankbrockners> #endmeeting
6:01 PM <Debra> Thanks for giving me time. Please review slides and send questions to me
6:01 PM <trozet> thanks Debra
6:01 PM <frankbrockners> Thanks Debra for giving us the highlights
meetings/bgs_detailed_minutes_22jun2015.txt · Last modified: 2015/06/26 13:38 by Frank Brockners