14:30:23 <asmacdo> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2019-06-21 14:30:23 <asmacdo> #info asmacdo has joined triage 14:30:23 <asmacdo> !start 14:30:23 <pulpbot> Meeting started Fri Jun 21 14:30:23 2019 UTC. The chair is asmacdo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:30:23 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:30:23 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2019-06-21' 14:30:23 <pulpbot> asmacdo: asmacdo has joined triage 14:30:32 <asmacdo> bmbouter: (+1) 14:30:54 <daviddavis> #info daviddavis has joined triage 14:30:54 <daviddavis> !here 14:30:54 <pulpbot> daviddavis: daviddavis has joined triage 14:31:26 <ggainey> #info ggainey has joined triage 14:31:26 <ggainey> !here 14:31:26 <pulpbot> ggainey: ggainey has joined triage 14:31:32 <ppicka> #info ppicka has joined triage 14:31:32 <ppicka> !here 14:31:32 <pulpbot> ppicka: ppicka has joined triage 14:31:47 <asmacdo> !next 14:31:48 <pulpbot> asmacdo: 17 issues left to triage: 4939, 4947, 4959, 4970, 4979, 4989, 4990, 4991, 4992, 4994, 4996, 4998, 5001, 5002, 5005, 5006, 5008 14:31:48 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:31:49 <pulpbot> RM 4939 - kersom - NEW - Docs - Collections upload workflows is using role endpoints 14:31:50 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:32:04 <asmacdo> ok im just gonna drive 14:32:05 <daviddavis> skip 14:32:15 <asmacdo> !issue 5005 14:32:15 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5005 14:32:16 <pulpbot> RM 5005 - horakmar - NEW - RPM remote sync ignores "proxy_url" settings 14:32:17 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5005 14:32:20 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage 14:32:20 <ttereshc> !here 14:32:20 <pulpbot> ttereshc: ttereshc has joined triage 14:32:25 <daviddavis> accept and add to sprint? 14:32:47 <daviddavis> also, unset category 14:32:49 <ttereshc> I can take care of it, it's the part of the task which is blocked 14:32:59 <ttereshc> so I can close it as a dupe I guess 14:33:08 <daviddavis> great 14:33:10 <asmacdo> #idea Proposed for #5005: ttereshc will close as dupe 14:33:10 <asmacdo> !propose other ttereshc will close as dupe 14:33:10 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Proposed for #5005: ttereshc will close as dupe 14:33:28 <asmacdo> #agreed ttereshc will close as dupe 14:33:28 <asmacdo> !accept 14:33:28 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Current proposal accepted: ttereshc will close as dupe 14:33:29 <pulpbot> asmacdo: 16 issues left to triage: 4939, 4947, 4959, 4970, 4979, 4989, 4990, 4991, 4992, 4994, 4996, 4998, 5001, 5002, 5006, 5008 14:33:29 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:33:30 <pulpbot> RM 4939 - kersom - NEW - Docs - Collections upload workflows is using role endpoints 14:33:31 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:33:32 <ttereshc> daviddavis, the one eyou were looking at recently with all the one-time settings 14:33:36 <asmacdo> !issue 4998 14:33:36 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4998 14:33:37 <pulpbot> RM 4998 - daviddavis - NEW - Artifact size is limited to 2 GB 14:33:38 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4998 14:33:58 <dalley> #info dalley has joined triage 14:33:58 <dalley> !here 14:33:58 <pulpbot> dalley: dalley has joined triage 14:34:39 <asmacdo> i was wondering if a separate story should be written (as an admin i can override default max artifact size) 14:34:51 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage 14:34:51 <bmbouter> !here 14:34:51 <pulpbot> bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage 14:35:03 <asmacdo> or if ^ should be part of this, which is just changing the datatype to allow bigger artifacts 14:35:59 <bmbouter> I think we can defer this one (accept and not add to sprint) 14:36:01 <bmbouter> what do you think? 14:36:06 <dawalker> #info dawalker has joined triage 14:36:06 <dawalker> !here 14:36:06 <pulpbot> dawalker: dawalker has joined triage 14:36:29 <asmacdo> bmbouter: thats fine by me 14:36:30 <ggainey> bmbouter: would this change external API when we do it? 14:36:36 <daviddavis> no 14:36:42 <ggainey> kk, cool 14:36:47 <daviddavis> it's such a small change and I think Katello will need this (eventually) 14:37:05 <daviddavis> I probably should have just filed a PR instead of opening this issue 14:37:07 <ggainey> I know that I have seen 4Gb single-RPMs "in the wild" 14:37:21 <asmacdo> !propose accept and add to sprint 14:37:21 <pulpbot> asmacdo: propose accept Propose accepting the current issue in its current state. 14:37:21 <daviddavis> I am fine with just accepting 14:37:27 <ggainey> yeah 14:37:34 <asmacdo> daviddavis: !propose accept 14:37:37 <ttereshc> ggainey, it's for any artifact, just any file 14:38:00 <asmacdo> #idea Proposed for #4998: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:38:00 <asmacdo> !propose accept 14:38:00 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Proposed for #4998: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:38:08 <ttereshc> +1 14:38:11 <daviddavis> I have to redo the migrations so I might pick this up anyway 14:38:13 <ggainey> ttereshc: kk - makes it even more important then (because the 4Gb RPms were...for a kind of dumb reason, but 4Gb *files* are not at all uncommon) 14:38:23 <ttereshc> ggainey, exactly 14:38:28 <bmbouter> daviddavis: that's cool w/ me 14:38:29 <asmacdo> #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:38:29 <asmacdo> !accept 14:38:29 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:38:30 <daviddavis> yea ISOs 14:38:30 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:38:31 <pulpbot> asmacdo: 15 issues left to triage: 4939, 4947, 4959, 4970, 4979, 4989, 4990, 4991, 4992, 4994, 4996, 5001, 5002, 5006, 5008 14:38:32 <pulpbot> RM 4939 - kersom - NEW - Docs - Collections upload workflows is using role endpoints 14:38:33 <asmacdo> !issue 4994 14:38:33 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4994 14:38:34 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:38:35 <pulpbot> RM 4994 - iballou - NEW - Combine manifest-list-tag and manifest-tag models in Docker plugin 14:38:36 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4994 14:38:36 <ggainey> yah 14:38:39 <daviddavis> skip 14:38:44 <ttereshc> +1 14:38:46 <asmacdo> !skip 14:38:47 <pulpbot> asmacdo: 14 issues left to triage: 4939, 4947, 4959, 4970, 4979, 4989, 4990, 4991, 4992, 4996, 5001, 5002, 5006, 5008 14:38:47 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:38:48 <pulpbot> RM 4939 - kersom - NEW - Docs - Collections upload workflows is using role endpoints 14:38:49 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:38:52 <daviddavis> skip 14:38:54 <kersom> ha! 14:38:54 <bmbouter> yup 14:38:54 <asmacdo> !issue 4992 14:38:55 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4992 14:38:55 <pulpbot> RM 4992 - jsherril@redhat.com - NEW - 'fields' parameter is not available in api docs/bindings 14:38:56 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4992 14:39:24 <ggainey> is this just an api-doc issue? 14:39:31 <daviddavis> there should be a P tag on this I htink 14:39:35 <bmbouter> it's an apiSchema issue 14:39:37 <asmacdo> ggainey: im betting that if its not documented, it doesnt work 14:39:44 <daviddavis> yea not in the bindings 14:39:45 <ggainey> heh, kk 14:39:45 <bmbouter> it's not that it's missing from the docs 14:40:18 <asmacdo> this seems important 14:40:18 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #4992: accept, add to sprint, add bindings tag 14:40:18 <ttereshc> !propose other accept, add to sprint, add bindings tag 14:40:18 <pulpbot> ttereshc: Proposed for #4992: accept, add to sprint, add bindings tag 14:40:25 <asmacdo> +1 14:40:25 <daviddavis> +1 14:40:29 <dalley> asmacdo, it works 14:40:29 <ggainey> +1 14:40:46 <dalley> it's not in the api docs but it does work 14:40:53 <daviddavis> it works but probably not from the bindings 14:40:54 <asmacdo> dalley it works in the bindings? 14:40:59 <dalley> no not in the bindings 14:41:02 <dalley> sorry 14:41:05 <dalley> misunderstood 14:41:06 <bmbouter> our docs and bindings all come from the schema 14:41:28 <bmbouter> so anytime it's wrong usually we have to add the schema decorators 14:41:52 <asmacdo> accepting... 14:42:04 <asmacdo> #agreed accept, add to sprint, add bindings tag 14:42:04 <asmacdo> !accept 14:42:04 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Current proposal accepted: accept, add to sprint, add bindings tag 14:42:06 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:42:06 <pulpbot> asmacdo: 13 issues left to triage: 4939, 4947, 4959, 4970, 4979, 4989, 4990, 4991, 4996, 5001, 5002, 5006, 5008 14:42:07 <pulpbot> RM 4939 - kersom - NEW - Docs - Collections upload workflows is using role endpoints 14:42:08 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:42:11 <asmacdo> !issue 4991 14:42:11 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4991 14:42:12 <pulpbot> RM 4991 - jsherril@redhat.com - NEW - Creating a repository version with many thousands of units fails 14:42:13 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4991 14:42:18 <asmacdo> (sorry for spamming you kersom) 14:42:36 <kersom> no problem at all 14:42:54 <daviddavis> I think this is probably a docs issue 14:43:43 <ggainey> the 4MB limit? 14:43:46 <asmacdo> so "document maximum request body size" 14:43:48 <ttereshc> yeah, I'm not sure what we can do 14:43:50 <ggainey> aye 14:44:11 <jsherrill> the only alternative i can think is to support some sort of multi-request version creation 14:44:12 <asmacdo> #idea Proposed for #4991: change to documentation issue 14:44:12 <asmacdo> !propose other change to documentation issue 14:44:12 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Proposed for #4991: change to documentation issue 14:44:13 <daviddavis> document the limit and maybe how to increase it if it's possible 14:44:27 <jsherrill> which seems like an advanced feature for the future, but nothing really to do now IMO 14:44:35 <ggainey> concur 14:44:36 <daviddavis> yea, that would be neat 14:44:36 <asmacdo> jsherrill: like burning a cd without finalizing it :) 14:44:41 <jsherrill> asmacdo: yep! 14:44:49 * daviddavis has flashbacks 14:44:52 <asmacdo> i think our mechanisms are actually in place for that 14:45:14 <asmacdo> might not be as hard as it seems, but still 3.1+ 14:45:20 <ggainey> aye 14:45:38 <bmbouter> is 4991 root caused on the artifact file size limit? 14:45:54 <daviddavis> no it's request size 14:46:02 <daviddavis> it's limited by the size of web requests 14:46:11 <daviddavis> and the fact we use hrefs makes it more likely 14:46:11 <jsherrill> i would say its assumed to be a web request size limit 14:46:14 <bmbouter> ic 14:47:01 <ttereshc> accept as docs issue? 14:47:13 <ttereshc> for now 14:47:32 <asmacdo> yeah, jsherrill a separate story for the cd-burner story 14:47:33 <dawalker> +1 14:47:34 <daviddavis> +1 14:47:35 <ppicka> +1 14:47:39 <asmacdo> #agreed change to documentation issue 14:47:39 <asmacdo> !accept 14:47:39 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Current proposal accepted: change to documentation issue 14:47:40 <pulpbot> asmacdo: 12 issues left to triage: 4939, 4947, 4959, 4970, 4979, 4989, 4990, 4996, 5001, 5002, 5006, 5008 14:47:40 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:47:41 <pulpbot> RM 4939 - kersom - NEW - Docs - Collections upload workflows is using role endpoints 14:47:42 <daviddavis> please call it the cd burner story too 14:47:43 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:47:49 <jsherrill> haha 14:47:50 <asmacdo> !4989 14:47:50 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Error: "4989" is not a valid command. 14:47:59 <asmacdo> !issue 4989 14:47:59 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989 14:48:00 <pulpbot> RM 4989 - mdellweg - ASSIGNED - Api bindings for python use unnecessary verbose action names 14:48:01 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989 14:48:16 <daviddavis> skip for now 14:48:32 <bmbouter> +1 14:48:54 <asmacdo> i think we should accept 14:48:59 <asmacdo> dkliban is working on this 14:49:12 <daviddavis> I would wait to get his input 14:49:19 <daviddavis> I think he'll probably be adding this to the sprint 14:49:28 <asmacdo> fine by me 14:49:32 <ggainey> yeah, looks like he's already got some of the work done, yeah? 14:49:32 <asmacdo> !kip 14:49:35 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Error: "kip" is not a valid command. 14:49:36 <asmacdo> !skip 14:49:37 <pulpbot> asmacdo: 11 issues left to triage: 4939, 4947, 4959, 4970, 4979, 4990, 4996, 5001, 5002, 5006, 5008 14:49:37 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:49:38 <pulpbot> RM 4939 - kersom - NEW - Docs - Collections upload workflows is using role endpoints 14:49:39 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4939 14:49:54 <asmacdo> ggainey: i figure we just let him mark it up however it needs 14:49:58 <ggainey> yeah 14:50:02 <daviddavis> +1 14:50:04 <asmacdo> so thats it, the end of the triagable issues 14:50:10 <asmacdo> open floor! 14:50:10 <ttereshc> 5008 please 14:50:18 <asmacdo> !issue 5008 14:50:18 <asmacdo> #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5008 14:50:19 <pulpbot> RM 5008 - ttereshc - NEW - No way to enforce content specific uniqueness constaints in a repo version 14:50:20 <pulpbot> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5008 14:50:43 <ttereshc> bmbouter, this is the one we were talking about at sprint planning 14:50:53 <ttereshc> related to pulp-dev thread 14:51:36 <daviddavis> will we remove RemoveDuplicates stage with this change? 14:51:45 <asmacdo> i dont think we can do this 14:51:52 <ttereshc> daviddavis, it depends how we design it 14:52:12 <ttereshc> if it is with any content addition, I think it makes sens eto remove it 14:52:24 <ttereshc> asmacdo, why can't we? 14:52:26 <daviddavis> yea, just want to make sure we aren't duplicating code 14:52:29 <asmacdo> the trouble is that add/remove is a pulpcore endpoint 14:52:49 <asmacdo> how does the plugin writer have an opportunity to pass information like how to use RemoveDuplicates to core? 14:52:52 <bmbouter> the RH vpn keeps dropping out for me 14:52:58 <bmbouter> I have alot to say but can't :( 14:53:12 <bmbouter> ttereshc: you know the issue where our wifi drops... 14:53:21 <ttereshc> oh 14:53:35 <bmbouter> I'd like anyone who has a proposal on how to do this to write on the issue 14:53:38 <daviddavis> asmacdo: in one of the proposed designs, the plugin writer can set a unique repo key or some value that core will check 14:53:45 <asmacdo> what we have discussed in the past is that plugins needing advanced add/remove stuff should just provide their own endpoints, and tell users not to use POST repo versions 14:53:46 <ttereshc> +1 14:54:32 <bmbouter> there were other options we should consider those too 14:54:56 <bmbouter> and there are slightly different concerns the concern here is about uniqueness 14:55:08 <daviddavis> so I imagine two solutions: one would be a set of db fields that a plugin writer can specify. if that's not enough, a hook that a plugin writer can specify if the info isn't in the db. 14:55:20 <bmbouter> yup 14:56:05 <daviddavis> we should encourage the former though. if the app has to calculate uniqueness itself, it's going to be really slow. 14:56:07 <asmacdo> i have a conceptual problem with that 14:56:36 <asmacdo> the pulpcore <--> plugin interface everywhere else in pulp specifically avoids the hook pattern 14:57:08 <bmbouter> to me, we just haven't used it yet 14:57:39 <asmacdo> bmbouter: we can always do that, but i think having a strict pattern of how the plugin api works keeps it simple 14:58:01 <bmbouter> it sounds like we won't be able to achieve ou goals if its left that simple 14:58:12 <daviddavis> we could not have a hook and allow the repo key to contain properties which could be calculated. 14:58:16 <asmacdo> the plugin writers can provide custom endpoints 14:58:33 <asmacdo> creating a repository version is easy, call whatever code you want 14:58:37 <bmbouter> there is also the "other" problem which isn't uniqueness but "closure" 14:58:46 <bmbouter> and I think kwe need to comprehensively handle both 14:59:10 <asmacdo> i'm not convinced that any hooks we make can be general enough 14:59:27 <asmacdo> i think the plugin writer needs to be able to do whatever they need-- possibly even adding arguments 15:00:30 <bmbouter> I would need to see proposals and options before I can say if it will/wont be viable 15:00:45 * daviddavis cringes at the idea of typed repo versions 15:01:06 <bmbouter> and my goal is to broaden the scope to be both about uniqness and closure 15:01:22 <daviddavis> what if a repo version contains two content types from two different plugins? how do we handle that if each plugin defines its own repo veroisn creation endpoint? 15:01:36 <asmacdo> heres my main point-- we are really close to GA. lets not try to solve all the plugins problems that they can solve themselves 15:01:50 <asmacdo> especially, lets not introduce a whole new pattern 15:02:13 <asmacdo> maybe this stuff can simplify plugins, but this can be done with custom endpoints as-is 15:02:24 <mikedep333> #info mikedep333 has joined triage 15:02:24 <mikedep333> !here 15:02:24 <pulpbot> mikedep333: mikedep333 has joined triage 15:02:44 <bmbouter> users using add/remove endpoints (from core) can corrupt their repo versions 15:02:49 <bmbouter> and there is nothing plugins can do about that 15:03:03 <bmbouter> corrupt in the sense that it's in pulp, but when a user goes to use it it would never work 15:03:29 <daviddavis> yea, but if I use a repo verison creatoin endpoint for eery other plugin, I would be surprised if some plugin doesn't use it 15:03:39 <daviddavis> and then I would be angry if it corrupted my repo version 15:03:49 <ttereshc> it also doesn't look right to me that we introduced a generic thing for the sync (RemoveDuplicates) but for the copy we need to do some custom stuff and enforce the same restrictions 15:03:57 <asmacdo> bmbouter: if a repo version is corrupted, it could also be fixed by the "manual add/remove" 15:04:09 <bmbouter> yup 15:04:33 <daviddavis> possibly 15:04:47 <daviddavis> it might be too hard to fix in some cases 15:04:49 <bmbouter> asmacdo: sure but the concern I heard was that pulp is unsafe to use 15:05:12 <bmbouter> we really need various proposals and consider them 15:05:18 <daviddavis> yea agreed 15:05:25 <bmbouter> and hen if we can't do any of them then we'll know for sure 15:05:31 <asmacdo> we could make a master/detail add-remove endpoint 15:05:47 <bmbouter> and if it's too bit, or too close to GA we can decide we can't do them for risk/release resone 15:05:48 <asmacdo> IMO that would be the simplest way, and it would preserve existing patterns 15:05:55 <bmbouter> s/bit/big/ 15:06:41 <bmbouter> we need to have the proposals written to really consider them (I think) 15:06:52 <asmacdo> sure 15:06:54 <bmbouter> pros/cons/risk-assessment all that 15:07:06 <asmacdo> so, lets take this back to the list? 15:07:22 <bmbouter> list or the issue 15:07:34 <dawalker> +1 email list that all should comment on issue 15:07:50 <ttereshc> let's write proposals on the issue and bring them to the list 15:07:57 <bmbouter> this sounds great 15:08:17 <ggainey> concur 15:08:26 <bmbouter> asmacdo: and if they're too big, not right, etc we can choose not too (I hear you) 15:08:41 <bmbouter> s/too/to/ :) 15:08:46 <asmacdo> yeah all that sounds great -- i was jumping ahead a bit 15:09:29 <ttereshc> great, thank you all, I'm glad I was able to bring attention to this one 15:09:41 <ggainey> +1 15:10:05 <bmbouter> asmacdo: it's all good 15:10:08 <bmbouter> know why? 15:10:11 <bmbouter> !friday 15:10:11 <pulpbot> ♪ It's Friday, Friday, gotta get down on Friday ♪ 15:10:16 * daviddavis dances 15:10:20 * bmbouter moonwalks 15:10:28 <asmacdo> lol 15:10:37 <asmacdo> any other open floor business? 15:10:39 <kersom> bmbouter, you mentioned changed the #4990 from ansible to pulpcore 15:10:51 <bmbouter> yes 15:10:59 <bmbouter> let's chat on that 15:11:42 <bmbouter> pulp_ansible doesn't support on-demand (not lazy :) and it won't for a while 15:12:54 <bmbouter> and so as a user of pulp_ansible you can specify policy to whatever value you want and it will validate even though the plugin code totally ignores it 15:13:05 <bmbouter> so the concern is usability 15:13:36 <bmbouter> and the desire is for a plugin that hasn't taken action to "enable on-demand" should fail validation at Remote create/update time if on-demand is set to anything except the default which is 'immediate' 15:13:51 <bmbouter> and that would need to be done in core... 15:15:08 <bmbouter> I loosely described it here https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4990#note-2 15:15:22 <bmbouter> the idea is the policy attribute would be shown in the serializer in core still 15:15:31 <bmbouter> so no visible change for users 15:15:47 <kersom> the only test that we have related to this is attempt to create a remote using a non valid - policy, and exception is raised...but we do not test if certain plugin that does not support lazy...and what outcomes of this. 15:15:52 <bmbouter> but the validator would specifically fail validation if policy != 'immediate' 15:16:29 <bmbouter> and all plugins would enable lazy by adjusting the serializer's validation in their Remote's subclass 15:16:31 <kersom> not being able to even to create a remote, right? 15:16:35 <bmbouter> correct 15:16:42 <daviddavis> +1 15:17:07 <bmbouter> and 4990 would become a core issue and I propose a RC3 blocker 15:17:16 <daviddavis> they could even define their own policies other than the ones we have now? 15:17:37 <bmbouter> daviddavis: that gets a lot trickier 15:17:41 <daviddavis> oh ok 15:17:53 <bmbouter> because these policy types are made w/ features that come together in various cmponents 15:17:54 <asmacdo> i see, choices would be defined on pulpcore, but validated against by default 15:18:00 <bmbouter> and those components aren't fully pluggable atm 15:18:09 <daviddavis> I see 15:18:18 <bmbouter> asmacdo: yes 15:18:45 <bmbouter> if we make ^ change in rc3 it would require all plugins that support lazy to release compat releases (which should be done anywya) 15:18:53 <daviddavis> so there would be a superset of policy opts and each lugin defines its own subset 15:18:53 <bmbouter> and I think we should do that 15:19:00 <bmbouter> yes 15:19:01 <daviddavis> +1 15:19:23 <daviddavis> let's move it to core and add it to the sprint and rc3 blockers 15:19:35 <bmbouter> woot 15:20:01 <asmacdo> And update description to match the plan 15:20:16 <bmbouter> daviddavis: want me to doo all ^ now? 15:20:24 <daviddavis> sure go for it 15:20:30 <bmbouter> I'll update description too and add to rc3 blocker list 15:20:40 <asmacdo> i guess lets call it on open floor 15:20:40 <bmbouter> and probably send email to the rc3 thread 15:20:44 <bmbouter> ty 15:20:46 <ggainey> +1 15:20:53 <ggainey> great discussion 15:20:54 <asmacdo> #endmeeting