| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-10-24 | |||
| 13:49:19 | belmoreira | lucky ones | |
| 13:49:20 | dansmith | not sure that's because migration is hard so much as a chance to start fresh? | |
| 13:49:36 | mriedem | he mentioned while talking about their normal upgrade pain of carrying patches forward | |
| 13:49:43 | mriedem | so it could just be a chance to start fresh yeah | |
| 13:49:48 | sdague | stephenfin: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/495541 would land another 3 privsep patches | |
| 13:50:16 | mriedem | i haven't heard from nectar | |
| 13:50:18 | mriedem | but never really do | |
| 13:50:24 | mriedem | mgagne: you're cellsv1 aren't you? | |
| 13:51:29 | belmoreira | also, in newton there's the placement_database group in the configuration. And it's advised to use it. I don't see any reference of it now in master | |
| 13:51:32 | stephenfin | sdague: done and done | |
| 13:51:46 | mriedem | belmoreira: that's a mistake, don't use that | |
| 13:52:10 | mriedem | i thought we cleaned that all out actually | |
| 13:52:53 | mriedem | ah we didn't revert that from newton https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/1b5f9f8203c90fe447d33c89f238104026052d1e | |
| 13:52:59 | stephenfin | sdague: Regarding https://review.openstack.org/#/c/500354/, any reason you think we were using 'discard_warnings' before? | |
| 13:53:18 | stephenfin | i.e. what's the chances we'd regress on something by dropping it | |
| 13:53:42 | mriedem | newton isn't eol yet, i could still revert that before eol... | |
| 13:54:10 | mriedem | yeah we removed in ocata https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442762/ | |
| 13:54:16 | belmoreira | mriedem: ok | |
| 13:55:38 | mriedem | this was the revert https://review.openstack.org/#/c/360638/ | |
| 13:55:58 | mriedem | ah yeah so the revert removed the reno and code, but missed the config options, | |
| 13:56:04 | mriedem | which is what my change removed | |
| 13:56:12 | mriedem | so we should consider backporting that too newton also before the eol | |
| 13:57:42 | stephenfin | dansmith: Got a sec to discuss https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509107/ ? | |
| 13:57:47 | belmoreira | thanks for all the suggestions | |
| 13:58:06 | belmoreira | after moving to Ocata with this configuration (means that I still keep cellsV1 schedule behaviour) then for Pike the plan is to remove all these placements and move the existing cellsV1 to cellsV2 (point everything to the global nova_api and do the mappings) | |
| 13:58:15 | dansmith | stephenfin: yup | |
| 13:58:20 | stephenfin | I was the one that actually told ralonsoh to drop the versioning code in a dependent patch because I didn't think it was necessary | |
| 13:58:37 | belmoreira | is there any know blocker that I'm missing or this should work then? | |
| 13:58:39 | stephenfin | as we don't store that in a database nor do we send it between services | |
| 13:58:39 | dansmith | belmoreira: cool | |
| 13:58:41 | mriedem | tonyb: what's the status on newton eol? because i think i've got another worthwhile change for newton before eol | |
| 13:59:10 | mriedem | belmoreira: honestly we probably won't know much about cellsv1 issues here as none of us are running it | |
| 13:59:23 | dansmith | stephenfin: if we register it then we really shouldn't be breaking the rules because if someone were to send us a 1.0 version of that we couldn't even deserialize it | |
| 13:59:43 | dansmith | stephenfin: if we feel it's overly onerous to break the rules, then we might as well not even bump the version because we *can't* honor the old one | |
| 13:59:53 | dansmith | overly onerous to *not* break the rules Imean | |
| 14:01:12 | stephenfin | dansmith: Yeah, that makes sense. I guess we might want to revert part of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/508498/ too, in that case | |
| 14:01:27 | belmoreira | mriedem: dansmith: ok. thanks, I will go through these steps and I will let you know this goes | |
| 14:01:34 | stephenfin | (that's the one where I said not to do this versioning against ralonsoh's better instincts :)) | |
| 14:02:05 | dansmith | stephenfin: eesh | |
| 14:03:25 | dansmith | stephenfin: well, it's done now, so maybe just reset the versions to 1.0, admit fault, and try to be clean going forward | |
| 14:03:40 | dansmith | reverting an unsupportable object version isn't particularly helpful either | |
| 14:03:55 | dansmith | we clearly need a little more oversight on those objects I think | |
| 14:04:52 | dansmith | if we start taking those over the REST API we have to be even more squeaky clean than we are with our RPC APIs, since we don't control all the sending and receiving code together | |
| 14:05:10 | stephenfin | dansmith: For my own clarification, do you need to register objects if you do not want to send them over the wire? | |
| 14:06:03 | dansmith | stephenfin: you need to register them in order to receive them through the automatic deserializer, so it knows where to find an object implementation to use to deserialize a primitive | |
| 14:06:10 | sahid | dansmith: we are goin gto start that at a particular version, right? i'm interested to know what is the "someone" who is going to send a version 1.0? | |
| 14:06:28 | dansmith | stephenfin: if you don't need to do that, you still need to build the object, but not register it | |
| 14:07:30 | dansmith | sahid: I understand that there is no code that should be sending the object at the earlier version with that field set right now. That doesn't mean we just make tons of random changes with versions we can't support until some arbitrary point at which we say things are now stable. That version history will confuse people and provide counterexamples they may copy. | |
| 14:07:38 | stephenfin | dansmith: Hmm, to the best of my knowledge these are used only by nova rn, so we're not sending these over RPC nor the REST API. Therefore deserialization is not yet necessary | |
| 14:08:19 | stephenfin | Yeah, we should either be treating these as versioned objects or not doing so | |
| 14:08:20 | dansmith | stephenfin: yeah, so, if that's the case, we should be not registering them (which won't track their hashes) and leave them at 1.0 instead of recording unsupportable versioned changes | |
| 14:08:30 | dansmith | stephenfin: the problem is, | |
| 14:08:38 | dansmith | stephenfin: this is a library that anything could be picking up and using at any point, | |
| 14:08:54 | dansmith | so if you don't register/version them properly, then nobody can do that until you do | |
| 14:09:09 | dansmith | so maybe that means until release 2.0 of the library it's not usable across projects, which is okay I guess, | |
| 14:09:09 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/newton: Remove unused placement_database config options https://review.openstack.org/514685 | |
| 14:09:11 | mriedem | dansmith: sdague: johnthetubaguy: belmoreira: tonyb: ^ i think we should get that into newton before eol | |
| 14:09:27 | sahid | dansmith: we also have moved like that in os-vif, i'm not sure how that is going to confuse people. | |
| 14:09:31 | dansmith | but it's another weird thing you'd want to communicate to your users | |
| 14:09:57 | sahid | s/also/always | |
| 14:10:39 | dansmith | sahid: you have always had broken versioning? are you really arguing that "consistently broken" is less confusing or better? :) | |
| 14:11:01 | stephenfin | dansmith: So ultimately, it sounds like the easiest thing to do would be to introduce the changes I had ralonsoh drop from PS2 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/508498/2..4/os_vif/objects/subnet.py | |
| 14:11:04 | sahid | dansmith: well it's your point of view | |
| 14:11:23 | dansmith | library interfaces should be stable. library interfaces that exist to provide cross-service communication primitives should be .... *really* stable :) | |
| 14:12:23 | sahid | not sure i do understand what you try to say, we change a field so we bump the version, that seem simple | |
| 14:12:28 | stephenfin | +1 Consider it a point learned :) I'll go add those missing versioning functions and hope no one's deploying os-vif from master, heh | |
| 14:12:53 | dansmith | sahid: because just recording a version does not do anything if you can't support the old one | |
| 14:13:17 | dansmith | sahid: it's not a commit log, it serves an actual purpose, unless you break the rules and then it does nothing but communicates to people something you can't do | |
| 14:13:27 | ralonsoh | stephenfin: should I add a make_compatible in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/508498? | |
| 14:13:39 | sahid | it's just to keep history as a chnagelog is doing | |
| 14:13:41 | ralonsoh | stephenfin: and in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509107/? | |
| 14:13:48 | dansmith | sahid: it is not | |
| 14:14:38 | sahid | okay okay you win, i'm not going to arguing all the day for something so minor :) | |
| 14:14:42 | sahid | please do what you prefer | |
| 14:14:58 | stephenfin | ralonsoh: Yes please, and sorry for sending you the wrong direction :( | |
| 14:15:07 | ralonsoh | stephenfin: no problem at all | |
| 14:16:15 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Parse numbered & unnumbered resources & traits https://review.openstack.org/514091 | |
| 14:16:16 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Numbered groupings to GET /allocation_candidates https://review.openstack.org/514092 | |
| 14:16:58 | mriedem | sahid: breaking version compatibility isn't really a minor thing | |
| 14:17:11 | mriedem | it also affects whether or not you can backport patches | |
| 14:17:17 | sahid | mriedem: it was not the case | |
| 14:17:31 | dansmith | especially for a library to provide cross-service communication primitives | |
| 14:18:02 | sahid | os-vif is not shared by services as you and dansmith seem to think on the review | |
| 14:18:17 | dansmith | that is the *purpose* of the library | |
| 14:18:40 | dansmith | just because I can hammer this square peg into this round hole doesn't mean it's a good idea | |
| 14:19:14 | sahid | it's you point of view and i do not share it, but no worries we don't have to be always agreed :) | |
| 14:19:29 | dansmith | you don't agree that os-vif is supposed to be shared between services? | |
| 14:20:09 | dansmith | from the os-vif page: "Integration library between network (Neutron) and compute (Nova) providers" | |
| 14:20:11 | dansmith | that's the intent | |
| 14:21:22 | mriedem | sahid: is your argument / justification that since nova and neutron are not yet doing vif negotation using os-vif objects, it's not something we have to worry about? | |
| 14:23:04 | sahid | mriedem: the field has been updated, incrementing the version seem to be a good practice | |
| 14:23:13 | sahid | that is not going to break anything | |
| 14:24:07 | mriedem | it would break me if i were using version < 1.2 of that object and had the dhcp_server field set | |
| 14:24:28 | mriedem | and moved to >= 1.2 where dhcp_server no longer exists | |
| 14:24:41 | sahid | no, that can't happen | |
| 14:24:52 | mriedem | probably more clear to say, i have 1.2 with dhcp_servers set, and downgrade to 1.1 | |
| 14:25:06 | mriedem | there is no compatibility routine for converting dhcp_servers to dhcp_server | |
| 14:25:31 | sahid | but again, os-vif is not shared between service, you seem to forgot that point | |
| 14:25:45 | mriedem | sahid: can you clarify that point per my question above? | |
| 14:26:01 | mriedem | do you mean it's not shared because we haven't yet implemented the vif negotiation code between nova and neutron? | |