Open Stack

On 20/04/16 13:26, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 19/04/16 18:04, Steve Baker wrote:
>> On 19/04/16 20:29, Steven Hardy wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:24:46PM +1200, Steve Baker wrote:
>>>>     All of the TripleO design summit sessions are on Thursday 
>>>> afternoon in
>>>>     slots which clash with Heat sessions. Heat is a core component 
>>>> of TripleO
>>>>     and as a contributor to both projects I was rather hoping to 
>>>> attend as
>>>>     many of both sessions as possible - I don't think I'm alone in 
>>>> this
>>>>     desire.
>>>>
>>>>     Is it possible that some horse trading could take place to 
>>>> reduce the
>>>>     clashes? Maybe TripleO sessions could move to Wednesday morning?
>>> Yes I agree this is unfortunate.  I already queried the clashes wrt the
>>> contributor meetups, and was told we can only adjust if we can find 
>>> another
>>> project willing to switch - I'm Open to negotiation if any other 
>>> PTLs wish
>>> to change sessions at this late stage.
>>>
>>> I see the current Heat schedule has SoftwareDeployment improvements 
>>> [1] and
>>> Issues with very large stacks [2] at non-conflicting times, which is 
>>> good
>>> as these are probably amongst the top priorities for TripleO (other 
>>> than
>>> performance improvements, which relates to very-large-stacks).
>>>
>>> One observation I would make is that Heat does have a pretty large 
>>> number
>>> of sessions (12 in total plus meetup), this is always going to present
>>> challenges from a scheduling point of view - perhaps we can ask for a
>>> volunteer or two (other than myself) from the Heat community who is 
>>> willing
>>> to cover at least the Upgrades fishbowl[3] and Composable Services
>>> workroom[4] sessions if we can't resolve the conflicts.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> [1]https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9115 
>>>
>>> [2]https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9117 
>>>
>>> [3]https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9118 
>>>
>>> [4]https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9292 
>>>
>>
>> I think we could reduce the topic overlap just by shuffling the heat
>> sessions.
>>
>> Thomas, what do you think of the following?
>> Swap work sessions "Release model and versioning" and "Validation
>> improvements"
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9240
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9247
>> This would let me attend the tripleo CI work session, and the release
>> model session which I proposed ;)
>
> I'm driving the validation improvements session, but I don't care 
> about the conflicting TripleO session "Reducing the CI pain" so that's 
> OK.
>
>> Swap work sessions "Performance improvements" and "hot-parser"
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9236
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9248
>
> I think this is a no-go because it would put the hot-parser session on 
> at the same time as the Tacker/heat-translator joint session that will 
> necessarily have a bunch of the same people in it.
>
>> This will make the performance work session before the performance
>> fishbowl, but I'm sure we could make that work. Its not like we need the
>> fishbowl to solicit areas of improvement.
>
> Umm, I thought that was the idea.
>
> I need to be at both of those Heat ones anyway, so this doesn't really 
> help me. I'd rather have the DLM session in this slot instead. (The 
> only sessions I can really skip are the Release Model, Functional 
> Tests and DLM.) That would give us:
>
>           Heat                        TripleO
>
>  Wed 3:30 Release Model
>  Wed 4:30 HOT Parser
>  Wed 5:20 Functional Tests
>
>  Thu 1:30 DLM                         Upgrades
>  Thu 2:20 Convergence switchover      Containers
>  Thu 3:10 Convergence cleanup         Composable Roles
>  Thu 4:10 Performance                 API
>  Thu 5:00 Validation                  CI
>
> I think that way Steve and I could probably both cover upgrades, and 
> he could cover the rest.
>
> I'd like to get to the composable roles and containers sessions too, 
> but we'd have to rejig basically every Heat session and I think it's 
> too late to be doing that.
>
+1, this proposal works for me