| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-05 | |||
| 19:58:23 | sdague | mriedem: ok, that's a pretty soft hit honestly | |
| 19:58:41 | mriedem | sdague: yeah i said it was an anecdote on re-read | |
| 19:58:42 | sdague | and, I would agree with it, the docs lagged | |
| 19:58:51 | mriedem | ? | |
| 19:58:51 | mriedem | which docs/ | |
| 19:58:58 | mriedem | we had pretty solid in-tree docs by rc1 | |
| 19:59:04 | mriedem | the install guide was late | |
| 19:59:08 | mriedem | for both placement and cells v2 | |
| 19:59:09 | sdague | the install guide | |
| 19:59:24 | sdague | because that's the bit that people on the deploy side do need | |
| 19:59:42 | sdague | and, I think that's fine critique of "yep, we need to do that better next time" | |
| 19:59:44 | mriedem | sure, but when is the last time someone from nova was writing the install guide? | |
| 20:00:06 | sdague | mriedem: yep, sure, a bunch of things changed since the last major service changes like this showed up | |
| 20:00:22 | mriedem | isn't this like the thing in newton when matt kasawara wanted the install guide in nova so we'd own it, and we said no | |
| 20:00:44 | sdague | mriedem: no, I think this was some collective falling through the cracks | |
| 20:01:29 | sdague | where there was a lot of assumptions about who all owned things, that seemed to fall appart, because the last time a new service was rolled out was conductor, and the landscape was a lot different | |
| 20:01:39 | sdague | and ... we kind of happened to have 2 hit at the same time | |
| 20:01:49 | sdague | so, stuff happens | |
| 20:02:13 | mriedem | i agree that not having a rushed clusterfck of a release in ocata would have been better :) | |
| 20:02:21 | sdague | mriedem: right, also that | |
| 20:02:21 | mriedem | and i think we retrospected on that | |
| 20:02:36 | sdague | anyway | |
| 20:02:48 | mriedem | but i will say i'm happy with the focus put on the in-tree docs for placement and cells v2 that a bunch of people worked on | |
| 20:03:04 | mriedem | in years past our bar for documentation of features in tree was non-existent | |
| 20:03:11 | mriedem | just like our bar for requiring testing | |
| 20:03:25 | sdague | my point is, there is totally legit criticism on some things that were less than ideal for service / major feature rollout. | |
| 20:03:45 | sdague | but that's very different than saying those are gratuitous features | |
| 20:03:47 | mriedem | sure, i don't disagree, and i think we/i have been as critical | |
| 20:05:49 | sdague | I'm just sick of "features trump stability/usability" where features are code for "stuff I don't like or understand" and "stability/usability" is code for "my personal priority". And don't want to let that one slide this time. | |
| 20:12:32 | dansmith | I especially like "rearchitect the entire project ... in a branch" | |
| 20:17:52 | sdague | yeh... I am sure the upgrade process would be very smooth there | |
| 20:28:27 | cdent | Is "solid governance model" code for "not letting the devs decide"? | |
| 20:34:57 | sdague | probably | |
| 20:35:19 | sdague | or, more likely "put my distguished architect in charge" | |
| 20:35:57 | sdague | ok... I'm saving to draft a response on that last oracle one. Because that's going to spiral out of control if I don't | |
| 20:36:04 | sdague | I should make sure mordred sees it | |
| 20:36:38 | sdague | because the "we need 12 months to integrate our value add".... is kind of trigger words | |
| 20:38:07 | cdent | heh | |
| 20:38:37 | cdent | I have a sort of point of order question, or something like that: | |
| 20:39:35 | cdent | Why are people so worried about shit spiralling out of control? From a slightly different point of view that looks like people just avoiding the truth and putting more barriers in place to getting to the root causes of problems. | |
| 20:40:16 | cdent | I know, as mriedem so eloquently puts it, there's a lot of bitter feelings, but that's a symptom of a greater disease, not the problem itself | |
| 20:40:20 | mriedem | is it bad to pick a fight with what is probably an oracle exec? | |
| 20:41:14 | cdent | I suppose there's a chance that disagreement on this stuff is just the nature of the universe, so keeping it in a pot is best, but that feels a bit dystopic. | |
| 20:41:19 | sdague | cdent: because not everyone has your patience level for email fights | |
| 20:41:25 | mriedem | "There needs to be more customer and vendor driven involvement to solidifying a core set of features that everyone can rely on working consistently across releases and upgrades." | |
| 20:41:29 | mriedem | ^ well no sh*t | |
| 20:41:40 | mriedem | so pony up the leads here oracle | |
| 20:42:22 | mriedem | sdague: oh heh, i just replied to that one | |
| 20:42:32 | mriedem | i couldn't resist | |
| 20:42:35 | cdent | please please sdague email _discussions_ ;) | |
| 20:42:42 | cdent | why should you resist mriedem | |
| 20:42:42 | sdague | many people find the random flaming basically too emotionally sapping to want to participate in discussions at all, so what happens is all the thoughtful middle gives up | |
| 20:42:50 | mriedem | i'm glad i wasn't the only one that interpreted "we need you to do LTS because we have a hard time keeping up with our forks" | |
| 20:43:14 | dansmith | at least oracle funds so many people working on stuff in the community | |
| 20:43:44 | mriedem | to date, there is one person from oracle helping with multiattach | |
| 20:44:05 | mriedem | i will give credit where credit is due | |
| 20:44:15 | cdent | sdague: I guess I'm weird: I'm so conscious of the under- or un-expressed emotion that that is the thing that I find so sapping. | |
| 20:44:28 | cdent | incredibly so | |
| 20:45:11 | sdague | cdent: sure, that might be you. Lots of people basically end up ignoring the whole of the mailing list for some number of weeks after this because they see the mailing list as a place where loud people yell about things. | |
| 20:45:43 | cdent | do you consider the current conversation to be yelling already or not quite there yet? | |
| 20:45:56 | sdague | I think it is just about there | |
| 20:45:57 | mriedem | stvnoyes: btw, let me thank you personally for helping out with the multiattach stuff | |
| 20:46:27 | sdague | cdent: which is why I "save draft" on my last email | |
| 20:46:29 | mriedem | stvnoyes: also gave you a tip in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456877/6/nova/compute/manager.py | |
| 20:46:47 | cdent | wow. I guess I spent too much time on usenet in the 90s | |
| 20:46:51 | sdague | cdent: yep | |
| 20:47:35 | cdent | to me this feel like polite but earnest dinner conversation | |
| 20:47:57 | sdague | I think if you polled the audience you would not get that reaction | |
| 20:50:14 | melwitt | mriedem: cool, I figured. since we're going to be at the summit anyway, we could chat briefly about it then | |
| 20:50:32 | mriedem | melwitt: perhaps on thursday night | |
| 20:50:45 | mriedem | which is the only night i'll get to enjoy the company of my fellow nova compatriots | |
| 20:52:00 | melwitt | mriedem: k. bummer we only get to hang with you one evening | |
| 20:52:12 | mriedem | and sunday night | |
| 20:52:13 | mriedem | and friday morning | |
| 20:52:22 | mriedem | and the 2 minutes in between sessions | |
| 20:52:29 | efried | mriedem Would you mind pushing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391288/ ? I'm getting merge conflicts up the chain, and would like to limit how much rebasing is needed. | |
| 20:53:23 | mriedem | efried: don't you know i'm all riled up? | |
| 20:53:28 | mriedem | :) | |
| 20:53:37 | efried | mriedem Me too. The day I've had. | |
| 20:53:53 | mriedem | just blame it on thorst_afk | |
| 20:53:57 | efried | Always. | |
| 20:54:21 | thorst_afk | he's always afk | |
| 20:54:38 | melwitt | hah | |
| 20:56:16 | efried | Honestly, I'm not sure how https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/ got a merge conflict but its predecessors didn't. | |
| 20:56:32 | efried | It didn't touch any non-PowerVM files. | |
| 20:57:32 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456877/7/nova/tests/unit/compute/test_compute.py@10260 | |
| 20:57:32 | mriedem | melwitt: i'm suprised this doesn't result in a keyerror | |
| 20:57:36 | mriedem | since it's not using a kwarg | |
| 20:57:58 | mriedem | oh i know why | |
| 20:58:02 | mriedem | it's using attachment_id as the message | |
| 20:58:55 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah, that might match because of python named argument matching? | |
| 20:59:08 | mriedem | no i think it's because | |
| 20:59:08 | mriedem | def __init__(self, message=None, **kwargs): | |
| 20:59:12 | mriedem | if not message: | |
| 20:59:23 | mriedem | if you overwrite the message, we don't try the msg % kwargs | |
| 20:59:26 | mriedem | and get the KeyError | |
| 20:59:37 | melwitt | oh, I see. | |
| 21:00:00 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add Cinder v3 detach to shutdown_instance https://review.openstack.org/456877 | |
| 21:02:03 | melwitt | I was thinking of the named argument thing but that works in the opposite way. you can specify positional args as kwargs by name (and in wrong order) and it will still work | |
| 21:02:56 | melwitt | s/positional/normal/ | |