| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-26 | |||
| 19:07:35 | sdague | without any changes | |
| 19:07:37 | lbragstad | reading the error on lines 45 - 48 make it seem like nova requires v3 | |
| 19:07:48 | sdague | lbragstad: it does for this call | |
| 19:08:25 | mriedem | i think i'm just trying to say, if we were unsure before, we're sure now | |
| 19:08:29 | mriedem | so seems we should note that | |
| 19:08:31 | sdague | mriedem: yes, that's fair | |
| 19:08:41 | mriedem | but...the existing reno has GET /v3/projects/project_id in it | |
| 19:08:47 | mriedem | which implies v3 is required | |
| 19:08:52 | mriedem | so maybe we just don't need a release note for this fix | |
| 19:09:02 | sdague | yeh | |
| 19:09:13 | sdague | I was just looking, that is what I'd sort of go with | |
| 19:09:23 | mriedem | i'm good either way | |
| 19:09:31 | sdague | the only other item is the fact that we fixed a bug we introduced in p1 | |
| 19:09:38 | mriedem | right that tripped me up | |
| 19:09:55 | sdague | but, for people that don't consume this until pike final, saying that might be really confusing | |
| 19:09:58 | mriedem | i very much doubt many people are in product on p1 right now | |
| 19:10:04 | mriedem | right | |
| 19:10:23 | mriedem | so i'd either say nothing, no new reno, or new reno that just has an upgrade impact saying keystone v3 is for sure required now | |
| 19:10:33 | sdague | ok, lets go nothing | |
| 19:10:47 | mriedem | read my lips, no, new, reno | |
| 19:11:00 | openstackgerrit | Sean Dague proposed openstack/nova master: Be more tolerant of keystone catalog configuration https://review.openstack.org/438049 | |
| 19:13:10 | mriedem | +2 | |
| 19:14:31 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Migrate to oslo request_id middleware - mv 2.46 https://review.openstack.org/467998 | |
| 19:14:51 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Updated from global requirements https://review.openstack.org/468089 | |
| 19:15:01 | mriedem | sdague: also +2 on your 2.46 | |
| 19:15:04 | mriedem | melwitt: ^ | |
| 19:15:47 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1692893 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "'nova usage' returns 500 when deleted row in instance_extra is archived" [Undecided,New] | |
| 19:15:47 | mriedem | artom_: so about this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1692893 - what you reported is really a duplicate of the other bug, so shouldn't we duplicate it? | |
| 19:16:11 | melwitt | mriedem: +W | |
| 19:16:56 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Catch InstanceNotFound when deleting allocations https://review.openstack.org/468517 | |
| 19:17:02 | artom_ | mriedem, I specifically didn't because duplicating it would hide it from search results, and I feel like my report is more relevant to actual users, as opposed to the other Tempest stacktrace | |
| 19:17:30 | mriedem | ok, well, i just duplicated it :) | |
| 19:17:39 | artom | mriedem, *shrug* | |
| 19:17:44 | mriedem | i didn't think about search results | |
| 19:18:03 | artom | I don't feel that strongly about it | |
| 19:18:43 | melwitt | hm, I didn't think dupes got hidden from search results | |
| 19:18:54 | artom | It warns you before you do it | |
| 19:18:57 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1692376 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Binary dependencies aren't easily discoverable" [Undecided,New] | |
| 19:18:57 | mriedem | mtreinish: so i just read https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1692376 | |
| 19:19:03 | artom | So I went to duplicate it, and then thought otherwise | |
| 19:19:04 | mriedem | mtreinish: and....idk | |
| 19:19:21 | mriedem | mtreinish: the binary dependencies you need are going to depend on service and configuration | |
| 19:19:21 | melwitt | artom: interesting, never knew that | |
| 19:19:29 | mriedem | mtreinish: plus anything in the devref is going to get out of date | |
| 19:19:43 | artom | melwitt, I just discovered a couple of days ago ;) | |
| 19:19:55 | melwitt | launchpad, you are full of mysteries | |
| 19:20:17 | mtreinish | mriedem: well if we don't actually write it down anywhere how are people supposed to know what's needed? | |
| 19:20:18 | mriedem | just like http://cosmosmysteryarea.com/index.html | |
| 19:20:20 | artom | For all we know LP is where The Matrix will come from | |
| 19:20:42 | mriedem | mtreinish: requirements.txt + bindep? | |
| 19:21:28 | mriedem | we used to have a fairly full package list in https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/development.environment.html#explicit-install-clone | |
| 19:21:34 | mriedem | but then we got bindep and that was cleaned up | |
| 19:21:50 | melwitt | lol, we have the same thing in santa cruz https://www.mysteryspot.com/ | |
| 19:22:23 | mtreinish | mriedem: and bindep are just the deps for running the tests (like what you need to build libxml, etc) | |
| 19:23:19 | mtreinish | like where does it say I need qemu-img installed? | |
| 19:23:37 | mriedem | mtreinish: where does it say you need hyper-v or vcenter installed? | |
| 19:23:49 | mriedem | or a power 8 rack for powervm? :) | |
| 19:24:11 | mriedem | https://docs.openstack.org/ocata/config-reference/compute/hypervisors.html | |
| 19:24:21 | mriedem | is anything hypervisor specific | |
| 19:26:02 | mtreinish | mriedem: well powervm isn't in tree :) | |
| 19:26:41 | sdague | mtreinish: surprise! it mostly is | |
| 19:27:03 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Changing deleting stale allocations warning to debug https://review.openstack.org/468519 | |
| 19:27:10 | mtreinish | oh, it started merging | |
| 19:27:56 | mriedem | yeha | |
| 19:27:57 | mriedem | *yeah | |
| 19:28:06 | mtreinish | mriedem: so I agree there are some bits that are config dependent, but clearly outlining the requirements for using nova seems like something we should do | |
| 19:28:08 | mriedem | i actually got on efried the other night about docs | |
| 19:28:21 | mriedem | mtreinish: i have triaged it as opinion | |
| 19:28:30 | mriedem | which means it is now in purgatory | |
| 19:28:38 | mtreinish | mriedem: especially since there are things which you need like qemu-img which are always needed (at least from what I could tell) | |
| 19:28:45 | mtreinish | mriedem: what does opinion even mean? | |
| 19:28:53 | mriedem | it means, meh | |
| 19:28:55 | cdent | mriedem: I've pushed fixes for both of those bugs, but only ran the nearby tests before I did. It is time for my weekend to start so feel free to fix everything I've forgotten. | |
| 19:29:01 | mriedem | cdent: thanks | |
| 19:31:13 | sdague | mtreinish: I think writing the arch install guide in nova tree is out of scope. That is kind of part of what the install guide and packaging is about | |
| 19:32:19 | mtreinish | I'm not saying the arch install guide. (I haven't even tried that) I'm saying we're shipping code with external requirements that aren't documented anywhere | |
| 19:32:29 | mtreinish | sure packaging solves this, but how do packagers know what's needed | |
| 19:33:02 | mtreinish | it doesn't seem unreasonable to say if installing from source make sure you have X, Y, Z installed since nova calls out to those | |
| 19:33:03 | sdague | by being part of our community | |
| 19:33:25 | efried | mtreinish Since you're clearly interested in furthering the cause of powervm in-tree, here ya go: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/ | |
| 19:33:43 | sdague | I do get in a perfect world there would be a crisp "here is everything you need" interface, but in the list of priorities that's not really in the top 100 | |
| 19:33:59 | efried | (and mriedem, updating refs is on our to-do list, near the top) | |
| 19:34:22 | sdague | as the only people it's impacting is building from source without using any of the deployment projects | |
| 19:34:36 | mtreinish | sdague: I'm not saying it's a priority. I filed a bug to just recognize it's a gap | |
| 19:34:54 | mriedem | mtreinish: i didn't invalidate the bug, i just marked it low priority | |
| 19:34:58 | mriedem | if someone wants to take that on they can | |
| 19:35:12 | mriedem | with my reservations about it noted in there | |
| 19:35:18 | mriedem | i.e. complicated and getting out of date easily | |
| 19:35:48 | mtreinish | efried: I guess that I can take a look... | |
| 19:36:18 | efried | mtreinish It's a biggie. Perhaps you can figure out a way to parallel-process the review using that cloud in your closet... | |
| 19:36:50 | sdague | mtreinish: right, so my feeling is that bugs not in the top 100 priorities are just hay hiding needles in the stack. | |
| 19:37:48 | sdague | efried: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/24/nova/virt/powervm/tasks/storage.py ... I'm confused about the LOG.exception that have "ignoring" in their message | |
| 19:38:01 | sdague | because, that's going to be a giant stack trace which will scare people | |
| 19:38:06 | sdague | but then being "meh" | |
| 19:38:10 | mtreinish | efried: I asked ibm to give me funding for that cloud and I was told no. They didn't even offer to give me any power boxes | |
| 19:38:12 | sdague | seems contradictory | |
| 19:38:12 | efried | sdague Taskflow esoterica | |
| 19:38:17 | mtreinish | not that my circuit breaker could handle them | |
| 19:39:00 | mriedem | leakypipes: did https://review.openstack.org/#/c/409706/ resolve that mitaka issue you were chasing the other night? | |
| 19:39:09 | sdague | efried: ok, intentional, then I'm fine with it | |