| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-05 | |||
| 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/ | |
| 21:03:47 | efried | aHA! | |
| 21:03:51 | efried | It's melwitt's fault! | |
| 21:04:14 | efried | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462764/3/nova/tests/unit/virt/powervm/test_driver.py | |
| 21:04:33 | melwitt | lol, you meant literally | |
| 21:04:34 | mriedem | heh, well, it's really your fault | |
| 21:05:14 | mriedem | stvnoyes: btw, reverify is ignored | |
| 21:05:15 | mriedem | use recheck | |
| 21:06:07 | efried | So, hm, is there any way for me to fix my merge conflict without rebasing the predecessors? | |
| 21:18:34 | thingee | hey anyone oppose me proposing the deprecation of the trusted filter? | |
| 21:18:54 | thingee | it has been experimental since it has existed in may 28 2012 | |
| 21:20:06 | cdent | new things crawl out of the woodwork every day | |
| 21:20:52 | thingee | aight, I'll send an email to ops list to see if anyone cares. | |
| 21:21:00 | cdent | good plan | |
| 21:22:34 | thingee | http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2017-May/013371.html boom | |
| 21:39:31 | stvnoyes | mriedem: ok thanks. I had read somewhere that reverify was used to re-kick a gate test, but it must have been stale info | |
| 22:20:47 | openstackgerrit | Mike Perez proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate scheduler trusted filter https://review.openstack.org/463065 | |
| 22:24:08 | openstackgerrit | Mike Perez proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate scheduler trusted filter https://review.openstack.org/463065 | |
| 22:42:55 | mordred | sdague: I feel like maybe I'm skipping too much of that thread | |
| 22:51:01 | mordred | sdague: oh - nope. reading more of it does not make my life any better | |
| 23:11:51 | mriedem | thingee: that reminds me https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457812/ | |
| 23:12:09 | mriedem | stvnoyes: in the long ago reverify would do the same thing as recheck, but i think they stopped handling that a few months ago | |
| 23:12:39 | thingee | mriedem: deprecate all the filters | |
| 23:13:19 | mriedem | thingee: btw, what prompted this? | |
| 23:18:53 | thingee | The board/tc meeting discussed a goal of simplification. Reduction of options and what not | |
| 23:18:56 | thingee | mriedem: ^ | |
| 23:19:28 | thingee | I was pointed to this when I was gathering ideas | |
| 23:20:12 | thingee | mriedem: let me know if you have suggestion of things worth looking into | |
| 23:20:20 | mriedem | thingee: holy crap we probably have a ton | |
| 23:20:29 | mriedem | thingee: i know we deprecated a lot of things in ocata, | |
| 23:20:40 | mriedem | i think you could just be looking for things that are deprecated for removal | |
| 23:21:02 | mriedem | assuming someone doesn't already have a patch up to remove those things and we just haven't seen it yet | |
| 23:21:07 | thingee | mriedem: yeah I removed something out of nova recently that was marked deprecated. not sure if I saw anything else, but I'll double check | |
| 23:23:50 | mriedem | thingee: grep for deprecated_since='15.0.0', and you'll see a few things | |
| 23:24:06 | mriedem | although, | |
| 23:24:21 | mriedem | i'd avoid anything under nova/conf/network as those are probably for nova-network which isn't gone yet | |
| 23:24:39 | mriedem | really anything that's deprecated related to nova-network is just signaling right now | |
| 23:25:03 | mtreinish | mriedem: an even longer time ago reverify would just run the gate queue again and not rerun check | |