aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ASF IRC Bot <>
Subject Summary of IRC Meeting in #aurora
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:59:36 GMT
Summary of IRC Meeting in #aurora at Mon Apr 21 18:05:57 2014:

Attendees: dmercer, lexinator, wickman, jfarrell, mchucarroll, wfarner, kts, jaybuff, mkhutornenko,
zmanji, andy_s, dlester, protochron, mansu

- Preface
- first release and outstanding tickets to achieve that
  - Action: add all outstanding release blocker tickets to AURORA-147 epic by EOD
  - Action: finish release scripts AURORA-78
  - Action: verify all license requirements are being met for first rc AUROA-278
- discussion on storage from dev@
  - Action: wfarner to create ticket and explore H2 + MyBatis to replace memStorage
- reviews not being addressed in weeks+
  - Action: update documents to reflect review process in use
  - Action: add hook for rbt to close any open jira tickets when 'submitting' a review
  - Action: add wickman to reviewboard Aurora group
  - Action: explore feasibility of closing reviews with a git hook
  - Action: create discuss on dev@ for shepherding contributors that have show interest
  - Action: look into reorganizing shipits it call out older reviews/reviewers
- weekly community meetings

IRC log follows:

## Preface ##
[Mon Apr 21 18:06:10 2014] <jfarrell>: good morning all, starting off the 1st Apache
Aurora meeting. ASFBot will be taking notes and sending to the dev@ list
[Mon Apr 21 18:06:51 2014] <jfarrell>: All pmc members here please announce your attendance
[Mon Apr 21 18:06:57 2014] <jaybuff>: i think the irc meeting protocol is for everyone
to raise their own hand when the meeting starts
[Mon Apr 21 18:06:58 2014] <jaybuff>: o/
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:02 2014] <kts>: here
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:05 2014] <jfarrell>: here
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:06 2014] <mchucarroll>: here
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:06 2014] <wfarner>: present
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:10 2014] <wickman>: here
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:11 2014] <dlester>: here
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:15 2014] <andy_s>: here
[Mon Apr 21 18:07:27 2014] <mkhutornenko>: here
[Mon Apr 21 18:08:06 2014] <kts>: mansu: welcome
[Mon Apr 21 18:08:26 2014] <mansu>: kts: thanks :)
[Mon Apr 21 18:08:38 2014] <wfarner>: jfarrell: IIRC you wanted to talk about the first
release.  that's probably the most interesting topic.
[Mon Apr 21 18:08:42 2014] <jfarrell>: topics I would like to see covered are
## first release and outstanding tickets to achieve that ##
[Mon Apr 21 18:09:41 2014] <jfarrell>: AURORA-147 is the capturing ticket
[Mon Apr 21 18:10:25 2014] <jfarrell>: I have been working on the release scripts and
have them about 80% of the way reworked after the initial review and will have them done and
reposted for review in the next day or so
[Mon Apr 21 18:11:00 2014] <dlester>: that's Aurora-78
[Mon Apr 21 18:11:18 2014] <jfarrell>: all tickets that where previously resolved i've
marked at 0.5.0 and we have 4 open tickets right now left
[Mon Apr 21 18:11:38 2014] <jfarrell>:!%3D%20resolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.5.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
[Mon Apr 21 18:11:41 2014] <kts>: I've already fixed the e2e test, marked that ticket
as closed
[Mon Apr 21 18:12:18 2014] <jfarrell>: are there any tickets that should be added into
the first rc that are currently open and not tagged as such
[Mon Apr 21 18:12:19 2014] <kts>: is AURORA-323 a blocker for first release? seems somewhat
[Mon Apr 21 18:12:26 2014] <wickman>: I dropped AURORA-14/AURORA-29 revert on the floor.
 If somebody else has the cycles, I'd love for a hand.  reviews are r/19955 and r/19958 respectively.
[Mon Apr 21 18:12:58 2014] <wfarner>: i agree, AURORA-323 should be considered orthogonal
[Mon Apr 21 18:13:11 2014] <jfarrell>: aurora-323 isn't a blocker, just tagged as reviewable
work and fix version of 0.5.0, if not committed it won't block
[Mon Apr 21 18:14:05 2014] <dlester>: I'll put up a review for Aurora-48, renaming doc
files by EOD which is currently part of the Aurora-147 epic. It's not a blocker
[Mon Apr 21 18:14:17 2014] <kts>: IMO all executor tests passing should be considered
a blocker for release, so AURORA-14 is high priority
[Mon Apr 21 18:14:22 2014] <wickman>: Also, a large portion of the code relies upon
the twitter commons.  I plan to cut a sweeping release of that today or tomorrow (0.3.0) and
syncing the aurora repository to that version.  I don't believe there is any ticket to track
that work.
[Mon Apr 21 18:15:36 2014] <lexinator>: +1 on AURORA-14
[Mon Apr 21 18:15:47 2014] <mansu>: We have a couple of APIs that we planned are deprecated.
I think we should deprecate them before we do our first release. AURORA-246
[Mon Apr 21 18:16:02 2014] <wfarner>: jfarrell: would it make sense to nail down a due
date for the release?
[Mon Apr 21 18:17:10 2014] <jfarrell>: based on the tickets being discussed i (informally)
propose that we work through the open reviews and the mentioned tickets and will generate
the first rc0 monday Apr 28th
[Mon Apr 21 18:17:30 2014] <wfarner>: +1
[Mon Apr 21 18:17:34 2014] <kts>: +1
[Mon Apr 21 18:17:41 2014] <jfarrell>: if we are able to tackle the mentioned tickets
sooner then we can cut the rc earlier
[Mon Apr 21 18:18:05 2014] <kts>: how about anything not merged prior to the next meeting
won't be in the release
[Mon Apr 21 18:18:39 2014] <wickman>: I would also love to see a number of config deprecations
to be finished before we release e.g. everything mentioned in src/main/python/apache/aurora/config/schema/
[Mon Apr 21 18:18:53 2014] <jfarrell>: sounds fair
[Mon Apr 21 18:19:06 2014] <wickman>: these should be minor.
[Mon Apr 21 18:19:08 2014] <dlester>: mansu: it appears that the review for Aurora-246
has been submitted -- are there additional reviews coming?
[Mon Apr 21 18:19:19 2014] <jfarrell>: wickman: if there isn't a ticket for that please
create one
[Mon Apr 21 18:20:29 2014] <jfarrell>: anything remaining on this topic or are we ready
to move to the next
[Mon Apr 21 18:21:13 2014] <jaybuff>: a lot of those deprecated comments wickman mentioned
reference jiras that dont exist
[Mon Apr 21 18:21:18 2014] <jaybuff>:   service                    = Boolean  # daemon
is DEPRECATED (MESOS-2492) in favor of
[Mon Apr 21 18:21:18 2014] <jaybuff>:                                         # service.
 by default, service is False.
[Mon Apr 21 18:21:30 2014] <jaybuff>:
gives me an error
[Mon Apr 21 18:21:31 2014] <wickman>: jaybuff: yep :-)  more reason to deprecate them.
[Mon Apr 21 18:21:39 2014] <kts>: #action add all outstanding release blocker tickets
to AURORA-147 epic by EOD
[Mon Apr 21 18:21:43 2014] <wickman>: filed AURORA-333
[Mon Apr 21 18:22:06 2014] <jfarrell>: #action finish release scripts AURORA-78
[Mon Apr 21 18:22:08 2014] <mansu>: dlester: oh ok. There is one more AURORA-142
[Mon Apr 21 18:22:54 2014] <mansu>: The APIs are already deprecated, the client needs
to be updated though.
[Mon Apr 21 18:22:58 2014] <jaybuff>: wickman: i guess they reference a different jira
[Mon Apr 21 18:22:59 2014] <jfarrell>: #action verify all license requirements are being
met for first rc AUROA-278
[Mon Apr 21 18:23:17 2014] <wickman>: jaybuff: correct -- twitter internal JIRAs that
were missed when open-sourcing
[Mon Apr 21 18:23:18 2014] <kts>: jaybuff: that's correct, those comments are from the
initial source drop
[Mon Apr 21 18:24:09 2014] <kts>: any other action items to add?
[Mon Apr 21 18:24:16 2014] <jfarrell>: kts: lets try and get those cleaned up if possible/not
too time consuming or at least capture with a ticket to have it looked at later
[Mon Apr 21 18:24:22 2014] <wickman>: should the enforced namespaces be ripped out before
the first release?
[Mon Apr 21 18:24:29 2014] <wickman>: e.g. prod, stagingN, devel.
[Mon Apr 21 18:24:32 2014] <kts>: environment names
[Mon Apr 21 18:25:09 2014] <wfarner>: unrestricting environment names seems like a nice-to-have,
but shouldn't be a release blocker
[Mon Apr 21 18:25:25 2014] <jfarrell>: wickman: lets propose that on the dev@ list and
have a larger discussion on that to get consensus, and agree that it shouldn't block the release
[Mon Apr 21 18:25:26 2014] <kts>: in theory that functionality could be supported by
the site hooks api, but i don't see it as high-priority. anyone else have an opinion
[Mon Apr 21 18:25:30 2014] <jaybuff>:
Allow job environments other than prod, devel, test or staging<number>
[Mon Apr 21 18:25:54 2014] <jfarrell>: any remaining action items for 1st topic
## discussion on storage from dev@ ##
[Mon Apr 21 18:27:07 2014] <wfarner>: current tack is experimenting with H2 + MyBatis
to replace MemStorage and company
[Mon Apr 21 18:27:20 2014] <wfarner>: i'll file a ticket for this part now
[Mon Apr 21 18:28:15 2014] <jfarrell>: I like the use of an orm here and opening up
the potential for a *sql backing if desired
[Mon Apr 21 18:28:49 2014] <zmanji>: wfarner: what is 'and company' of MemStorage?
[Mon Apr 21 18:28:50 2014] <kts>: I like the code savings this will bring us if executed
- right now we have stuff like;a=blob;f=src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/mem/;h=85890106f623435ae367ab788feb6698c071cba3;hb=refs/heads/master#l90
[Mon Apr 21 18:29:17 2014] <wfarner>: zmanji: everything under
[Mon Apr 21 18:29:21 2014] <wickman>: protochron: that would be awesome.
[Mon Apr 21 18:29:44 2014] <kts>: (a bespoke implementation of consistent indicies for
our in-memory db)
[Mon Apr 21 18:30:09 2014] <wickman>: protochron: the !AURORA-29 review is ready to
go in.  there was some good feedback on AURORA-14 but i do not have the cycles/expertise to
address much of it.
[Mon Apr 21 18:30:26 2014] <jfarrell>: thanks protochron for lending a hand, appreciated
[Mon Apr 21 18:30:41 2014] <kts>: did protochron say something?
[Mon Apr 21 18:30:49 2014] <dmercer>: Was wondering the same.
[Mon Apr 21 18:30:52 2014] <wickman>: kts: derp.  new client.  it was a PRIVMSG
[Mon Apr 21 18:31:01 2014] <protochron>: wickman: sounds good. I think I see what needs
to be done
[Mon Apr 21 18:32:23 2014] <kts>: anything else to say on the topic of storage?
[Mon Apr 21 18:32:26 2014] <jfarrell>: #action wfarner to create ticket and explore
H2 + MyBatis to replace memStorage
[Mon Apr 21 18:32:40 2014] <wfarner>: filed
## reviews not being addressed in weeks+ ##
[Mon Apr 21 18:33:23 2014] <kts>: list of missing shipits from the tool
[Mon Apr 21 18:33:25 2014] <kts>:
[Mon Apr 21 18:33:37 2014] <jfarrell>: since the addition of the shipits tool its reviews
have gotten better
[Mon Apr 21 18:34:35 2014] <jfarrell>: but it still seems that we are not being as diligent
at this
[Mon Apr 21 18:34:38 2014] <wfarner>: to weed out protocol ambiguity, we've informally
decided that a review should not be committed until all those on the People line have given
a 'Ship It'
[Mon Apr 21 18:34:52 2014] <wfarner>: i propose we formalize that protocol here
[Mon Apr 21 18:35:23 2014] <wfarner>: also, if the review submitter is not a committer,
the last committer to give a 'Ship It' is responsible for merging.
[Mon Apr 21 18:35:33 2014] <jfarrell>: #action update documents to reflect review process
in use
[Mon Apr 21 18:35:59 2014] <mchucarroll>: I remain unhappy with that protocol. For client
reviews, I’ve found that it’s often very hard to get reviews done; other folks not on
the “people” list often jump in to help out, but with this protocol, that doesn’t help.
[Mon Apr 21 18:36:00 2014] <wickman>: should we set up some process if reviewers are
not responsive?  have e-mail alerts for pending reviews?
[Mon Apr 21 18:36:13 2014] <jfarrell>: any open tickets that are associated with that
must be closed and tagged as being resolved in the current upcoming release #
[Mon Apr 21 18:36:31 2014] <jfarrell>: objections to updating rbt with a hook to close
and referenced tickets when submitted
[Mon Apr 21 18:36:35 2014] <wickman>: another problem is disparity between reviews being
submitted and being marked as submitted/closed on reviewboard.
[Mon Apr 21 18:36:37 2014] <wfarner>: mchucarroll: you should feel okay about changing
the People line to remove silent parties
[Mon Apr 21 18:36:39 2014] <mchucarroll>: I’d strongly prefer something like “People
line OR an equal number of shipits” - so that people can jump in and help out with delayed
[Mon Apr 21 18:36:48 2014] <kts>: jfarrell: +1\
[Mon Apr 21 18:37:00 2014] <wickman>: jfarrell: would love to see this.
[Mon Apr 21 18:37:16 2014] <jfarrell>: #action add hook for rbt to close any open jira
tickets when 'submitting' a review
[Mon Apr 21 18:37:16 2014] <wfarner>: +1 to beefing up rbt
[Mon Apr 21 18:37:27 2014] <wickman>: jfarrell: but it also needs to work if i'm merging
somebody else's review.
[Mon Apr 21 18:37:46 2014] <wickman>: jfarrell: i seem to recall that i did not have
remote close permissions on reviewboard, but possibly that's changed.
[Mon Apr 21 18:38:06 2014] <jfarrell>: #action add wickman to reviewboard Aurora group
[Mon Apr 21 18:38:41 2014] <wfarner>: jfarrell: would it be possible to set up a git
hook that does the closing?  that would get us out of permissions whack-a-mole
[Mon Apr 21 18:39:11 2014] <wfarner>: i'd be happy to contribute tooling code for this
[Mon Apr 21 18:40:00 2014] <jfarrell>: wfarner: i'll have to put on my infra hat and
look at what i/we can do, right now the rbt plugin may be a better initial approach
[Mon Apr 21 18:40:28 2014] <jfarrell>: i'd like to focus on us getting better at the
ticketing and review process to help with community growth and encourage new contributors
to tackle more issues, having a review open and not looked at for weeks does not help us
[Mon Apr 21 18:40:45 2014] <wfarner>: #action explore feasibility of closing reviews
with a git hook
[Mon Apr 21 18:40:59 2014] <kts>: should we have a more formal protocol for shepherding
newbie reviews?
[Mon Apr 21 18:41:11 2014] <wfarner>: i agree with that, simplifying things for committers
is in service of that goal
[Mon Apr 21 18:41:48 2014] <jfarrell>: #action create discuss on dev@ for shepherding
contributors that have show interest
[Mon Apr 21 18:42:16 2014] <dlester>: +1 kts. looking forward to the discussion on dev@
[Mon Apr 21 18:42:26 2014] <mkhutornenko>: any chance we could add a cron job to send
a pending reviews output (like to the @dev?
[Mon Apr 21 18:42:51 2014] <mchucarroll>: +1!!
[Mon Apr 21 18:43:33 2014] <jfarrell>: not sure if a cron would be good, if it triggers
too ofter then people might filter that message out and ignore
[Mon Apr 21 18:43:50 2014] <wfarner>: i agree that it would be filter-prone
[Mon Apr 21 18:44:17 2014] <kts>: +1 I already have plenty of cron-generated email that
I ignore. But if it were addressed specifically to me I might feel differently
[Mon Apr 21 18:44:18 2014] <wfarner>: this meeting might serve as a good soapbox to
call out latent reviews, though
[Mon Apr 21 18:44:24 2014] <mkhutornenko>: jfarrell: perhaps we have a setting to generate
output for stale reviews with no activity within last n days
[Mon Apr 21 18:45:22 2014] <jfarrell>: #action look into reorganizing shipits it call
out older reviews/reviewers
[Mon Apr 21 18:46:05 2014] <wfarner>: jfarrell: the tool already sorts to push stale
reviews to the top
[Mon Apr 21 18:46:16 2014] <kts>: meta-point - should action items have owners?
[Mon Apr 21 18:47:50 2014] <jfarrell>: kts: for this one i was going to take on the
responsibility and follow through after the meeting on them (jira/dev@/other)
[Mon Apr 21 18:48:17 2014] <jfarrell>: i've hit the main topics i wanted to address
for our first meeting, are there any outstanding topics anyone else would like to bring up
this week
[Mon Apr 21 18:49:05 2014] <dlester>: It's a metatopic, but maybe we could briefly discuss
these meetings?
## weekly community meetings ##
[Mon Apr 21 18:50:03 2014] <jfarrell>: i'd like to see open reviews/tickets and release
direction discussed
[Mon Apr 21 18:50:25 2014] <jfarrell>: if there are any decision points we create action
items to take it back to dev@ for an official vote
[Mon Apr 21 18:50:52 2014] <dlester>: any feedback on how this has gone so far?
[Mon Apr 21 18:50:57 2014] <jfarrell>: organizing tickets and prep does not need the
vote and is perfect to help set direction here
[Mon Apr 21 18:51:36 2014] <jfarrell>: having this forum and getting more people involved
will really help our community grow
[Mon Apr 21 18:51:38 2014] <jaybuff>: dlester: this meeting is incredibly helpful to
me to understand the state of affairs
[Mon Apr 21 18:52:40 2014] <dlester>: I think it'd be great to have someone on rotation
to basically keep the meeting moving. jfarrell you've been awesome with that today -- would
love to see someone in that role each week
[Mon Apr 21 18:54:04 2014] <dlester>: Are these meetings meant to be one hour? I don't
think we specified over email
[Mon Apr 21 18:55:24 2014] <jfarrell>: dlester: i'd like to take next week, if no one
objects, as it will be focused around the first rc and i've been primarily tackling those
[Mon Apr 21 18:55:58 2014] <jfarrell>: i think an hour is a good goal, then let any
further discussions happen on dev@ or in channel
[Mon Apr 21 18:56:26 2014] <dlester>: jfarrell: I think a tactical meeting on the first
RC sounds great
[Mon Apr 21 18:56:47 2014] <jfarrell>: any further topics anyone would like to address
within this meeting?
[Mon Apr 21 18:58:05 2014] <kts>: sounds like that's it
[Mon Apr 21 18:58:07 2014] <jfarrell>: i'd like to thank everyone for the hard work
and attention that has gone into the project and all the great steps that have been taken
so far in incubation
[Mon Apr 21 18:58:21 2014] <jfarrell>: lets keep this momentum going and get our first
rc out the door
[Mon Apr 21 18:58:39 2014] <jfarrell>: any issues or blockers please bring them up in
channel or dev@ list
[Mon Apr 21 18:58:44 2014] <jfarrell>: thanks everyone
[Mon Apr 21 18:59:02 2014] <jfarrell>: ASFBot: meeting stop

Meeting ended at Mon Apr 21 18:59:02 2014

  • Unnamed multipart/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message