Summary of IRC Meeting in #aurora at Mon Apr 6 18:00:29 2015: Attendees: thalin, wickman, wfarner, kts, mkhutornenko, serb, derfloh
- Preface - UpdateConfig.restart_threshold deprecation - 0.8.0 release progress - pesos patch IRC log follows: ## Preface ## [Mon Apr 6 18:00:59 2015] <wfarner>: welcome to the weekly community meeting, everyone! the meeting is for everyone, so if you're in this channel you're welcome to participate! [Mon Apr 6 18:01:18 2015] <wfarner>: first, roll call [Mon Apr 6 18:01:19 2015] <wfarner>: here [Mon Apr 6 18:01:36 2015] <thalin>: here [Mon Apr 6 18:01:36 2015] <serb>: here [Mon Apr 6 18:01:55 2015] <derfloh>: here [Mon Apr 6 18:01:57 2015] <kts>: here [Mon Apr 6 18:02:05 2015] <mkhutornenko>: here ## UpdateConfig.restart_threshold deprecation ## [Mon Apr 6 18:03:09 2015] <kts>: +10 [Mon Apr 6 18:03:10 2015] <wfarner>: AURORA-1240 [Mon Apr 6 18:03:24 2015] <wfarner>: mkhutornenko proposed this on the mailing list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-aurora-dev/201504.mbox/%3CCAOTkfX6C2-BD%3DvN9PSNbmWntZ2CLax23PmfG8L5m75rRPOZthw%40mail.gmail.com%3E [Mon Apr 6 18:03:42 2015] <wfarner>: we had unanimous support on the thread, and i have proceeded with the patch [Mon Apr 6 18:04:05 2015] <wfarner>: i suppose this is mostly a heads up at this point, but if anyone is strongly against this, please speak up soon! [Mon Apr 6 18:04:46 2015] <kts>: wfarner: is that linked to the wrong epic? [Mon Apr 6 18:05:01 2015] <kts>: should be deprecated in 0.8.0 and removed in 0.9.0 - 0.7.0 is already released [Mon Apr 6 18:05:35 2015] <wfarner>: kts: is that not how i have linked it? [Mon Apr 6 18:05:54 2015] <kts>: AURORA-905 [Mon Apr 6 18:06:03 2015] <kts>: says, "Features that should log a warning in 0.7.x and be removed in 0.8.0" [Mon Apr 6 18:06:34 2015] <wfarner>: sounds like that's most easily fixed by changing the description [Mon Apr 6 18:07:06 2015] <wfarner>: we've kind of been making dual use of "x.x.x deprecation" epics, newly-deprecated things and deprecated things being removed [Mon Apr 6 18:07:17 2015] <kts>: ah, I wasn't aware of that convention [Mon Apr 6 18:07:19 2015] <wfarner>: probably best to split those out going forward [Mon Apr 6 18:07:24 2015] <kts>: +1 ## 0.8.0 release progress ## [Mon Apr 6 18:09:11 2015] <wfarner>: kts looks like the only remaining feature work is testing and docs of basic auth [Mon Apr 6 18:09:38 2015] <kts>: wfarner: I should be able to knock those out today and tomorrow [Mon Apr 6 18:09:45 2015] <wfarner>: great, thanks [Mon Apr 6 18:10:32 2015] <wfarner>: that exhausts my agenda items. floor is open for anyone to open another topic [Mon Apr 6 18:10:51 2015] <wickman>: what's the update on https://reviews.apache.org/r/32373/? [Mon Apr 6 18:10:56 2015] <wickman>: (pesos) ## pesos patch ## [Mon Apr 6 18:11:48 2015] <wfarner>: there was a relevant discussion in IRC, exploring options for the community to back the code [Mon Apr 6 18:12:19 2015] <wickman>: link? [Mon Apr 6 18:12:24 2015] <wfarner>: i believe the best option was deemed to include it in a subtree of the aurora repo. this is still open for discussion [Mon Apr 6 18:12:35 2015] <wfarner>: trying to find it, not the easiest to turn up quickly... [Mon Apr 6 18:12:50 2015] <wickman>: why vendor it? [Mon Apr 6 18:12:57 2015] <wickman>: (if you remember the context of the discussion.) [Mon Apr 6 18:13:25 2015] <wfarner>: http://wilderness.apache.org/channels/?f=aurora/2015-04-02 [Mon Apr 6 18:14:07 2015] <wfarner>: this is probably worth continuing after the meeting, either here or (better yet) on the mailing list [Mon Apr 6 18:14:23 2015] <wfarner>: sound good? [Mon Apr 6 18:14:53 2015] <wickman>: that's reasonable. just don't want to be left in limbo and out of the loop. [Mon Apr 6 18:15:35 2015] <wfarner>: yup, that's why i think a ML discussion is best. the linked discussion was exploring options, and not a drawn conclusion [Mon Apr 6 18:16:03 2015] <wfarner>: any other topics? [Mon Apr 6 18:17:22 2015] <kts>: for folks that are just tuning in - the linked discussion is about the feasability of bringing in pesos, compactor, pystachio, etc. as first-class aurora subprojects, and the best way to go about doing it [Mon Apr 6 18:18:02 2015] <wickman>: who is going to take the lead on a ML discussion? [Mon Apr 6 18:19:03 2015] <wfarner>: wickman: you seem to be the most suitable candidate [Mon Apr 6 18:19:46 2015] <wickman>: i don't really have the context though -- all i want to do is submit the patch. [Mon Apr 6 18:20:55 2015] <wfarner>: the context is that we want to make it possible for a community to back these components, as they represent a significant part of the project [Mon Apr 6 18:21:38 2015] <wickman>: ok -- but should that be a blocker for the patch? (i'm fine if you say yes, i just want to know that's the reason we're sitting on it.) [Mon Apr 6 18:22:56 2015] <wfarner>: for me, it is [Mon Apr 6 18:23:07 2015] <wickman>: ok. [Mon Apr 6 18:23:12 2015] <wfarner>: mostly because i think it's very likely to be on the back burner if we defer [Mon Apr 6 18:23:42 2015] <wfarner>: but i'd love to know how others feel [Mon Apr 6 18:24:28 2015] <wickman>: can take it to the list. that's it for me. [Mon Apr 6 18:24:55 2015] <kts>: i feel similarly - this is an issue we should address before we merge the patch (to avoid creating a code silo for a particularly big portion of the project) [Mon Apr 6 18:26:17 2015] <wfarner>: any other topics before we close? [Mon Apr 6 18:27:29 2015] <wfarner>: thanks, everyone! [Mon Apr 6 18:27:31 2015] <wfarner>: ASFBot: meeting stop Meeting ended at Mon Apr 6 18:27:31 2015
