12:09:11 <kkeithley> #startmeeting 12:09:11 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Aug 13 12:09:11 2014 UTC. The chair is kkeithley. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:09:11 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 12:09:16 <kkeithley> #rollcall 12:09:32 * atinmu is here 12:09:35 <ndevos> kkeithley: uh, no, I have not seen that, just returned from lunch... 12:09:51 <kkeithley> meeting minutes @ https://public.pad.fsfe.org/p/gluster-community-meetings 12:09:56 <kkeithley> who's here? 12:09:58 * JustinClift is here, but really not in good state :( 12:09:58 <kkeithley> roll call 12:10:11 * ndevos _o/ 12:10:40 * lalatenduM is here 12:11:16 * lalatenduM was expecting a lots of people to be here :( 12:11:19 <kkeithley> well, that's sad 12:11:33 <ndevos> how many did the poll say, something close to 50 iirc? 12:11:33 <kkeithley> let's carry on, we're already 10 min late 12:11:48 <lalatenduM> yes around 45 12:11:52 <kkeithley> #topic action items from last week 12:12:39 <kkeithley> Pranith to send a list of components and assignees? Did this happen? 12:12:56 <Humble> afaik its not.. 12:13:03 <ndevos> I havent seen it... 12:13:16 <kkeithley> #action pranithk to send a list with components and their assignees - soliciting others to contribute too 12:13:34 <kkeithley> lalatenduM to send bug triage email? 12:13:41 <kkeithley> working on it now I see 12:13:42 <lalatenduM> kkeithley, working on it 12:13:53 <kkeithley> JustinClift to get initial GlusterFS Consultants and Support Companies page online 12:13:56 <kkeithley> working on it 12:14:43 <kkeithley> hagarth and pranith to communicate new plan for 3.6 on Aug 6th? 12:14:49 <kkeithley> did that happen? 12:15:07 <ndevos> yes, they did 12:15:30 <kkeithley> #action lalatenduM to send bug triage email 12:15:49 <kkeithley> #action JustinClift low priority to get initial GlusterFS Consultants and Support Companies page online 12:16:03 <kkeithley> ndevos to check on 3.6 nightly builds --- done 12:16:46 <kkeithley> kkeithley & hagarth to follow up on fixes for 3.4.6 --- done. N.B. there are currently two low priority bugs in the 3.4.6 tracker 12:17:12 <kkeithley> JustinClift to encourage Tamas Papp to log a bug bout http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2014-July/018219.html 12:17:15 <kkeithley> done? 12:17:20 <JustinClift> Ugh 12:17:22 <JustinClift> Totally forgot 12:17:33 <kkeithley> #action JustinClift to encourage Tamas Papp to log a bug bout http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2014-July/018219.html 12:17:37 <JustinClift> tx :) 12:17:45 <kkeithley> ndevos will verify status of patches proposed for 3.5.3 and request reviews for those patches in master? 12:18:02 <kkeithley> ndevos, done? 12:18:10 <ndevos> ah, oh, no, not done, no ETA for 3.5.3 either 12:18:24 <kkeithley> #action, no eta ndevos will verify status of patches proposed for 3.5.3 and request reviews for those patches in master? 12:18:42 <kkeithley> JustinClift to create blog post of latest leaderboard stats, after receiving from hagarth 12:18:49 <kkeithley> done? 12:18:58 <JustinClift> Didn't receive from hagarth 12:19:06 <JustinClift> So, blocked on that ;) 12:19:17 <kkeithley> #action hagarth and JustinClift: blog post of latest leaderboard stats, after receiving from hagarth 12:19:25 <JustinClift> Though, I could have done a better job of pinging him :) 12:19:35 <JustinClift> Yeah, that AI works 12:19:36 <kkeithley> kkeithley to email gluster-devel about the reviews needed for cppcheck stuff on master 12:19:52 <kkeithley> sort of done, I nag, nobody reviews. :-( 12:20:22 <kkeithley> sad kkeithley is sad 12:20:29 <ndevos> ;-( 12:20:39 <lalatenduM> kkeithley, I have reviewed these, but we need more experienced ones 12:20:46 <kkeithley> yes 12:20:56 <kkeithley> and btw, thanks for doing that. 12:21:11 <kkeithley> lalatenduM: ^^^ 12:21:24 <atinmu> kkeithley, I believe I had also reviewed 12:21:34 <kkeithley> atinmu++ 12:21:42 <kkeithley> no karmabot here though. 12:21:56 <lalatenduM> :) 12:22:23 <kkeithley> did we get all the AIs? the agenda is being edited in real time so I can't tell? 12:22:37 <ndevos> I just removed some duplicates 12:22:52 <kkeithley> okay, then are we ready to move to the next topic? 12:23:01 <ndevos> I think so 12:23:06 <kkeithley> #topic 3.4 12:23:43 <kkeithley> tracker bug is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125245, or https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=glusterfs-3.4.6 12:23:44 <glusterbot> Bug 1125245: unspecified, unspecified, 3.4.6, kkeithle, ASSIGNED , GlusterFS 3.4.6 Tracker 12:23:45 <glusterbot> Bug glusterfs: could not be retrieved: InvalidBugId 12:24:47 <kkeithley> only two bugs currently. What does anyone think about a estimated date for doing a 3.4.6beta? 12:25:06 <kkeithley> Early September perhaps? 12:25:16 <Humble> +! 12:25:16 <lalatenduM> kkeithley, fine with me 12:25:18 <Humble> +1 12:25:42 <kkeithley> shall we say September 1st then? 12:25:44 <ndevos> well, one of them is urgent, do we know how often it happens? 12:26:46 <JustinClift> #action JustinClift to test out Gitorious 3.x, to see if it's better than GitLab 12:26:51 <JustinClift> (just putting this in there) 12:26:53 <kkeithley> I'm looking to see if we have fixes for them? 12:26:58 <hagarth> both of them were reported by JoeJulian afaiu 12:27:12 <kkeithley> I don't see a fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123289 12:27:12 <glusterbot> Bug 1123289: urgent, unspecified, ---, pkarampu, ASSIGNED , crash on fsync 12:27:13 <ndevos> no, I think not, or at least I dont see them - and pranith isnt here 12:27:52 <kkeithley> until we get fixes we can't consider a date for a beta 12:28:02 <ndevos> yeah, thats what I was thinking 12:28:05 <hagarth> ndevos: http://review.gluster.org/8402 fixes the fsync crash I think 12:28:23 <kkeithley> #action kkeithley will nag pranithk about fixes for 3.4.6 12:28:37 <hagarth> i don't think we have much information about the memory leak problem 12:28:53 <ndevos> hagarth: I think http://review.gluster.org/8296 should fix it :D 12:29:05 <ndevos> (the fsync one) 12:29:32 <kkeithley> any other thoughts on 3.4? 12:29:45 <hagarth> ndevos: 8296 seems to be for a different problem ? 12:30:22 <ndevos> hagarth: the 3.4 bug is blocked by the bug that is used to post that change... (or am I looking at a different bz?) 12:30:42 <ndevos> hagarth: ah, yeah, never mind :-/ 12:30:51 <hagarth> ndevos: possibly, let us sync up on this one later. 12:31:07 <ndevos> hagarth: I'd leave that for kkeithley and pranith :) 12:31:27 <hagarth> ndevos: agree :) 12:31:48 * ndevos hands the token back to kkeithley 12:31:50 <kkeithley> okay, already have an AI, we'll pull in hagarth if needs be 12:32:03 <kkeithley> #topic 3.5 12:32:09 <kkeithley> ndevos, the floor is yours 12:32:30 <ndevos> tracker with current bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?maxdepth=2&hide_resolved=1&id=glusterfs-3.5.3 12:33:05 <kkeithley> lots of bugs IIRC. Are there fixes to go with them? 12:33:22 <ndevos> nothing extremely urgent, I think, so a release is not planned/dated yet 12:33:45 <ndevos> some have fixes, but the urgent ones not 12:33:56 <ndevos> well, not yet anyway 12:34:10 <kkeithley> may I give you an AI to nag for the urgent fixes? 12:34:34 <ndevos> sure, go for it 12:34:47 <kkeithley> #action ndevos to nag for 3.5.3 urgent fixes 12:34:48 <kkeithley> ;-) 12:35:03 <ndevos> I guess it's more or less like: ndevos will verify status of patches proposed for 3.5.3 and request reviews for those patches in master 12:35:23 <ndevos> but yes, thats all the same in the end 12:35:29 <kkeithley> I know you'll wait for fixes to be merged in 3.6 and master, but do we need to check if any need to be backported to 3.4? 12:36:23 <ndevos> hmm, maybe the DHT one, but you should have an email about it 12:36:39 <hagarth> kkeithley: yes, I would vote for the DHT fixes to be in 3.4.6 12:37:13 <kkeithley> which bz is that? 12:37:53 <ndevos> bug 1116150 for master 12:37:54 <glusterbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com:443/show_bug.cgi?id=1116150 high, unspecified, ---, nsathyan, POST , [DHT:REBALANCE]: Rebalance failures are seen with error message " remote operation failed: File exists" 12:38:04 <ndevos> and bug 1117851 12:38:05 <glusterbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com:443/show_bug.cgi?id=1117851 high, unspecified, ---, jdarcy, POST , DHT :- data loss - file is missing on renaming same file from multiple client at same time 12:38:30 <kkeithley> #action, kkeithley DHT backport 3.5.3->3.4.6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com:443/show_bug.cgi?id=1116150, https://bugzilla.redhat.com:443/show_bug.cgi?id=1117851 12:38:31 <glusterbot> Bug 1116150: high, unspecified, ---, nsathyan, POST , [DHT:REBALANCE]: Rebalance failures are seen with error message " remote operation failed: File exists" 12:38:32 <glusterbot> Bug 1117851: high, unspecified, ---, jdarcy, POST , DHT :- data loss - file is missing on renaming same file from multiple client at same time 12:38:40 <kkeithley> anything else for 3.5? 12:39:01 <ndevos> not that I know of... 12:39:02 <kkeithley> going once? 12:39:07 <kkeithley> going twice? 12:39:14 <kkeithley> #topic 3.6 12:39:24 <kkeithley> hagarth, the floor is yours 12:39:41 <hagarth> 3.6.0 tracker - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?maxdepth=2&hide_resolved=1&id=glusterfs-3.6.0 12:40:06 <ndevos> hagarth: are all fixes required to be listed on that tracker? 12:40:21 <hagarth> we need a few fixes in there besides I am waiting for fixes from afr, dht and user serviceable snapshots 12:40:48 <hagarth> ndevos: not quite, need to be listed there if any bug/fix needs special attention 12:40:56 <ndevos> hagarth: ok 12:41:26 <hagarth> as per the 3.6 schedule, we intend doing a test weekend from tomorrow 12:41:33 <ndevos> hagarth: are you requesting cloned bugs from master -> 3.6.0 for patches that get posted, just like we do for 3.5 and 3.4? 12:41:50 <kkeithley> +1 for cloning bugs 12:41:58 <hagarth> however I feel that we would still need at least the afr & dht fixes to conduct the test day 12:42:19 <lalatenduM> hagarth, +1 12:42:31 <ndevos> +1 for a test weekend - is there a test-plan? 12:42:44 <hagarth> ndevos: I am maintaining it lightweight right now. Probably we can bring in cloning after 3.6.0 is out? 12:43:13 <hagarth> ndevos: there are some test plans from 3.5.0. We need to provide the test weekend some structure too. 12:43:16 <ndevos> hagarth: no clones makes it difficult to close a bug when a release is made, we cant track two releases in one bug 12:44:29 <lalatenduM> We are putting that in to the triaging doc i.e. cloning bugs for each release 12:44:38 <hagarth> ndevos: ok, I am slightly bothered about increasing the overhead to get fixes into 3.6. However, if we think that cloning is helpful, I am all for it. 12:44:56 <kkeithley> is there (general) reluctance to cloning because someone thinks a lot of open bugs "looks bad"? Or is it just the extra work to clone it and keep it updated? 12:45:14 <hagarth> kkeithley: It is the latter aspect 12:45:32 <kkeithley> okay 12:45:50 <hagarth> if we get more effective at managing bugzillas, then it shouldn't become a problem. 12:45:54 <ndevos> I think the additional clicks to clone a bug have a greater benefit than messing up trackability of fixes 12:46:03 <lalatenduM> May be we should document it in patch backport wiki page 12:46:15 <kkeithley> lalatenduM: +1 12:46:28 <hagarth> anyway, we need to resume our triaging discussions .. so let us figure out a way of managing bugs better. 12:46:52 <hagarth> sure, let us start cloning bugs for 3.6 too. 12:46:53 <ndevos> actually I think we should enforce it in the rh-bugs/smoke job, check the branch against the version the bug is filed 12:47:24 <hagarth> ndevos: that is a good idea if we can get to do it 12:47:26 <kkeithley> ndevos: +1 12:47:37 <ndevos> hagarth: it;s not difficult :) 12:48:05 * ndevos wanted to propose that some weeks ago already, just seems to have forgotten about it 12:48:13 <hagarth> ndevos: I know, who owns that AI? ;) 12:48:20 <lalatenduM> ndevos, +1 12:48:30 <kkeithley> #action: ndevos to add branch checking to rh-bugs 12:48:41 <hagarth> kkeithley: thanks :) 12:48:44 <kkeithley> ;-) 12:48:50 <ndevos> #action ndevos to update the rh-bugs script in Jenkins to check git/branch and bug/version 12:48:52 <hagarth> coming back to the test weekend for 3.6 12:49:01 <hagarth> I propose that we move it by a week 12:49:21 <hagarth> to provide some structure to the test weekend and identify tests that we want to run 12:49:31 <ndevos> + 12:49:32 <kkeithley> any opposed? 12:49:33 <ndevos> +1 12:49:40 <lalatenduM> hagarth, +1 12:49:57 <hagarth> #action hagarth to evolve plan for the test weekend and update schedule for 3.6 12:50:11 <lalatenduM> should we release alpha for test weekend? 12:50:18 <hagarth> lalatenduM: most certainly 12:50:33 <lalatenduM> ok :) 12:50:48 <hagarth> anything else on 3.6? 12:51:01 <JustinClift> Hmmm 12:51:26 <atinmu> hagarth, one more point 12:51:29 <JustinClift> As a data point, I've been working on getting cmockery2 formula into OSX Homebrew 12:51:33 <hagarth> atinmu: yes, please 12:51:42 <JustinClift> When that's in, I'll do a GlusterFS one 12:51:50 <atinmu> hagarth, we are trying to make http://review.gluster.org/#/c/8126/ in for 3.6 12:51:51 <ndevos> JustinClift: cmockery2 is only for master atm? 12:52:18 <JustinClift> Well, it seemed to be needed 12:52:20 <atinmu> hagarth, its still WIP though :( 12:52:42 <hagarth> atinmu: do you want to add the corresponding bug for this to the 3.6.0 tracker? 12:52:44 <JustinClift> But yeah, the GlusterFS Homebrew formula can also pull master branch as well 12:53:00 <JustinClift> So I've been making it work for both as much as possible :) 12:53:04 <kkeithley> timecheck: eight minutes remaining 12:53:07 <hagarth> atinmu: it would be good to get this into 3.6.0 12:53:18 <hagarth> kkeithley: thanks, any other quick topics on 3.6? 12:53:34 <atinmu> hagarth, yes, I discussed this with Kaushal and we both agreed it should get into 3.6 12:53:43 <hagarth> atinmu: ok, sounds good. 12:53:56 <hagarth> kkeithley: don't seem to have more on 3.6. back to you again. 12:54:10 <kkeithley> #topic: cppcheck fixes nag 12:54:12 <kkeithley> 'nuf said 12:54:25 <kkeithley> #topic packaging 3.5.2 for Debian 12:54:46 <kkeithley> did we decide anything last week about adding -dev and -geo-rep subpackages? 12:55:10 <ndevos> did you discuss with the debian maintainer? 12:55:17 <kkeithley> I did not 12:55:34 <ndevos> maybe he should get involved in the decision making :) 12:55:45 <kkeithley> #action kkeithley to discuss -dev and -geo-rep subpackages for Debian with pmatthai 12:56:22 <kkeithley> #topic bugzilla sub-components for Community GlusterFS 12:57:20 <kkeithley> are we interested in having, e.g., an xlator component with dht,afr,ec,etc.,etc., sub-components? 12:57:35 <kkeithley> any other component/sub-components we would want? 12:57:40 <hagarth> we already have afr,dht, ec as components 12:58:03 <hagarth> cannot think of anything else atm 12:58:06 <kkeithley> right, they would become xlator sub-components if we decide we want this 12:58:13 <ndevos> I think most important components are there, when we really do triage bugs, we'll figure out if we need others 12:58:29 <Humble> hagarth, s/ec/disperse :) 12:58:44 <hagarth> Humble: ec is more appropriate for it though :) 12:59:11 <ndevos> +1 for ec 12:59:29 <Humble> yeah , but we finalized on 'disperse' and its active . 12:59:33 <Humble> :) 13:00:00 <Humble> xavih, ^^^ 13:00:10 <kkeithley> this came up with one of our program managers when I had him add new Version, Target-Release, and some other things, including some missing, new components. 13:00:49 <kkeithley> anyway, it doesn't sound to me like there's a strong interest 13:00:52 <hagarth> kkeithley: ok, let us review and modify on a need basis 13:01:19 <kkeithley> we're at one minute past the hour now. Shall we keep going? 13:01:20 <Humble> kkeithley, I think with new component assignee task we can shrink or expand the list. thats what I think.. 13:01:30 <hagarth> kkeithley: let us quickly go over the rest ? 13:01:43 <kkeithley> #topic web site mainenance 13:01:52 <hagarth> I added that topic 13:01:58 <Humble> "404" errors-- 13:02:15 <ndevos> misc fixed it, and he's in #gluster-dev too now 13:02:19 <kkeithley> maintenance 13:02:23 <hagarth> our website looks a lot better than before .. but we need to evolve a strategy for ongoing updates 13:02:30 <JustinClift> +1 13:02:39 <hagarth> we need to evolve a proposal and document it on gluster.org 13:02:55 <ndevos> I think Eco wanted to write a doc for that... 13:02:56 <hagarth> who would be interested in evolving that proposal? I will start a discussion with the interested folks. 13:03:04 <JustinClift> Count me in 13:03:24 <JustinClift> misc will likely be an interested party as well 13:03:40 <hagarth> JustinClift: cool, that looks like a good list to start with :) 13:03:55 <JustinClift> :) 13:03:57 <hagarth> #topic hagarth, JustinClift and misc to evolve a proposal for web site maintenance 13:04:00 <hagarth> oops 13:04:04 <JustinClift> Heh 13:04:08 <hagarth> #action hagarth, JustinClift and misc to evolve a proposal for web site maintenance 13:04:24 <kkeithley> #topic Where to propose and keep a list of projects for people who'd like to develop something? 13:04:30 <kkeithley> who does this belong to? 13:04:34 <hagarth> feature pages on gluster.org 13:04:42 <ndevos> ah, yes, I added that with some ideas 13:04:49 <hagarth> would be the right place for such ideas 13:05:01 <ndevos> even if it is not a glusterfs feature? 13:05:18 <ndevos> and, how would interested people find it? 13:05:22 <hagarth> ndevos: as long as there is an integration possibility with glusterfs, we can have it on gluster.org 13:05:31 <Humble> ndevos, may be a seperate page on gluster.org 13:05:46 <hagarth> ndevos: we can add a link from gluster.org->project proposals or something like that 13:06:03 <ndevos> Humble: hmm, yes, maybe in the 'how to contribute' and point to the proposed features 13:06:04 <Humble> +1 13:06:39 <ndevos> okay, cool, let's figure out how to update the website first then 13:06:53 <Humble> yep .. 13:06:59 <hagarth> and whenever there's a new feature page added, having a note on gluster-devel will ensure that it gets picked up for archival 13:07:42 <ndevos> yeah, and maybe ask gluster-users to propose their ideas too 13:08:10 <hagarth> i wonder if we need a better mechanism for managing feature pages but that's probably a topic for another day. 13:08:37 <ndevos> #action ndevos when we know how to update the webpage, add a pointer to proposed features for new contriburos 13:09:11 <kkeithley> anything else (on this topic?) 13:09:21 <ndevos> no? 13:09:26 <kkeithley> #topic Samba EPEL6 packaging issue http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2014-August/018374.html 13:09:51 <kkeithley> #action kkeithley will talk to Ira and Jose about this. 13:10:26 <hagarth> kkeithley: cool 13:10:35 <lalatenduM> kkeithley, is the issue coming from samba pkgs in d.g.o 13:10:41 <kkeithley> although our build w/ gluster support should be an exact clone of the Fedora/EPEL build 13:10:43 <kkeithley> I believe so 13:10:59 * mikedep333 is here 13:11:09 <kkeithley> because that's the only place you can get samba for epel w/ gluster 13:11:20 <kkeithley> ah, yes 13:11:21 <mikedep333> let me check if EPEL6 has samba packages e ven 13:11:35 <mikedep333> *even 13:11:36 <kkeithley> probably not 13:11:54 <lalatenduM> mikedep333, so you are using samba pkgs from d.g,o 13:12:01 <mikedep333> d.g.o? 13:12:02 <lalatenduM> ? 13:12:03 <kkeithley> it's not 13:12:06 <kkeithley> download.gluster.org 13:12:09 <mikedep333> yes 13:12:37 <kkeithley> samba is not in EPEL because it's in RHEL 13:12:39 <mikedep333> I assume that the Fedora packaging doesn't work correctly with EPEL6. It needs some update. 13:12:42 <lalatenduM> mikedep333, good catch thanks 13:12:42 <mikedep333> right 13:12:57 <kkeithley> Fedora packaging uses systemd. RHEL6 init.d 13:13:16 <lalatenduM> kkeithley, plz keep in me cc , I was thinking to add samba pkgs to CentOS SIG 13:13:23 <kkeithley> But the .spec is 99% the same 13:13:35 <mikedep333> I think the issue is where the PAM modules get installed 13:13:38 <kkeithley> (and RHEL7 uses systemd) 13:13:41 <kkeithley> right 13:13:42 <mikedep333> the PAM modules have probably been moved 13:13:46 <kkeithley> we'll get that sorted out 13:13:47 <mikedep333> since RHEL6 13:13:49 <mikedep333> great, thanks 13:14:28 <kkeithley> I'll circle back with the our Samba guys who took over from me the builds for d.g.o 13:14:43 <mikedep333> great :) 13:14:50 <kkeithley> anything else on Samba? 13:15:05 <mikedep333> 1 second 13:15:11 * ndevos only wonders why we dont have only the vfs_glusterfs module 13:15:31 <mikedep333> there was a samba 4.1.x security update 13:15:48 <mikedep333> the d.g.o packages lack it I think. 13:16:09 <mikedep333> http://www.samba.org/samba/history/samba-4.1.11.html 13:16:10 <kkeithley> 4.1.11, right? I think our builds lag a few days behind 13:16:14 <kkeithley> yup 13:16:16 <mikedep333> ok, understood 13:16:33 <ndevos> ah, and for such cases only the samba-glusterfs package would be nice :) 13:17:04 <kkeithley> I'll bring that up with our Samba guys 13:17:29 <kkeithley> any more (about Samba?) 13:17:46 <kkeithley> #topic Backups for GlusterFS Infrastructure 13:17:59 <kkeithley> JustinClift, that's you, right? 13:18:08 <JustinClift> This is just me being worried, and wanting to find out if we have backups 13:18:24 <JustinClift> Does anyone know of us doing backups for any part of our infrastructure? 13:18:29 <hagarth> JustinClift: right, let us discuss this on infra ML? 13:18:36 <JustinClift> hagarth: Good idea 13:18:38 <JustinClift> Lets do that 13:19:00 <JustinClift> #action JustinClift to start discussion around backups on gluster-infra mailing list 13:19:03 <kkeithley> #action JustinClift to discuss backup strategy on -infra ml 13:19:04 <Humble> JustinClift, even the upgrades can be part of it :) 13:19:11 <JustinClift> :) 13:19:22 <kkeithley> okay, anything else? 13:19:31 <kkeithley> going once? 13:19:45 <kkeithley> going twice? 13:20:03 <kkeithley> #endmeeting