| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-03 | |||
| 14:06:41 | mordred | that's amazing | |
| 14:07:14 | mriedem | the poor api design before or the fact it was actually documented? | |
| 14:07:16 | mriedem | both?! | |
| 14:07:24 | mordred | both! | |
| 14:07:45 | mordred | also - I'm glad the answer this time does not require me to figure out how to do more complex logic | |
| 14:07:59 | mordred | sg_attrs['policy'] = policies[0] # this is awesome | |
| 14:08:04 | mriedem | yup | |
| 14:08:40 | mordred | oh - although - I still probably want to figure out how to switch somethign there - because older mvs won't have the policy parameter | |
| 14:08:47 | mordred | maybe I'll just wait until someone complains | |
| 14:09:35 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Add reserved schema migrations for Ussuri https://review.opendev.org/686411 | |
| 14:12:03 | stephenfin | melwitt: I assume I can kill the entire 'networks' quota thing when nova-net is removed? | |
| 14:12:13 | stephenfin | It seems it's not enabled by default atm anyway | |
| 14:13:36 | efried | sean-k-mooney: do you understand the SEV bug well enough to phrase a docs & reno warning saying it's broke? In case the fix doesn't make Train? | |
| 14:16:29 | stephenfin | mriedem++ lyarwood++ thanks for getting those novaclient fixes in so quickly | |
| 14:16:35 | mriedem | np | |
| 14:17:08 | stephenfin | efried: I'll take a lash at it now | |
| 14:17:15 | efried | thanks stephenfin | |
| 14:23:41 | sean-k-mooney | efried: if you mean the virto/dma issue yes i can proably write something up | |
| 14:24:21 | sean-k-mooney | i dont understand all the lowlevel details but i think i understand enough for a reno listing it as known issues | |
| 14:25:16 | sean-k-mooney | if stephenfin give it a go ill be happy to review too | |
| 14:25:36 | sean-k-mooney | the metting is in #openstack-meeting right | |
| 14:26:09 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova stable/train: docs: Highlight the current broken state of SEV https://review.opendev.org/686414 | |
| 14:27:07 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: yeah, #openstack-meeting | |
| 14:27:52 | stephenfin | and that's the reno ^^ I don't know if I need more details or if it's more nuanced than that (are there only certain conditions where virtio-scsi will be present, for example)? | |
| 14:28:07 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 14:28:13 | sean-k-mooney | you have to opt in to it | |
| 14:28:25 | sean-k-mooney | ill review and add details as needed | |
| 14:28:49 | sean-k-mooney | then you can translate form sean-speak to english | |
| 14:30:46 | mriedem | stephenfin: comments inline | |
| 14:57:50 | kashyap | efried: Have not decided anything yet here: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/684375/ (on that 'preferred' thing). Will respond on the change | |
| 14:58:29 | efried | ack | |
| 15:00:41 | efried | tetsuro: o/ are you an hour off? :P | |
| 15:00:42 | dansmith | efried: you should approve my spec so you can include the sponsor revision in your template patch :) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686232/ | |
| 15:01:23 | efried | dansmith: you should add the core liaison section so I don't have to :) | |
| 15:01:35 | dansmith | efried: before it's in the template? | |
| 15:01:56 | efried | sure, there's nothing preventing additional untemplated sections afaik | |
| 15:01:57 | cdent | efried, mriedem : we got rid of healing of any allocations for healthy instance in nova-compute, yes? So if a nova-compute comes up and can't find a resource provider for itself, it will create one and its inventory but that's it. To fix things 'heal allocations' in nova-manage is the way to go. | |
| 15:02:10 | efried | dansmith: I'm only half serious, will review | |
| 15:02:14 | dansmith | efried: not sure I could get behind that heresy | |
| 15:02:49 | sean-k-mooney | while we are talking about specs ill jsut leave this one here https://review.opendev.org/#/c/683174/ | |
| 15:02:52 | efried | cdent: I don't remember, would have to go look | |
| 15:03:07 | sean-k-mooney | efried: is there a patch i should rebase it on? | |
| 15:03:21 | cdent | efried: if it's gone, I'm considering ways of putting it back... | |
| 15:03:23 | sean-k-mooney | or just wait for the template change to merge | |
| 15:03:24 | dansmith | efried: well, if you find something to -1 over I'll add it in there | |
| 15:03:30 | efried | sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/ | |
| 15:03:46 | efried | dansmith: ack. May be a little bit, though, I'm kinda backed up. | |
| 15:03:56 | sean-k-mooney | efried: thanks | |
| 15:03:58 | efried | (insert metamucil joke) | |
| 15:04:21 | dansmith | my spec is very fiber-rich, fwiw | |
| 15:04:34 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/python-novaclient stable/rocky: Stop silently ignoring invalid 'nova boot --hint' options https://review.opendev.org/685983 | |
| 15:04:35 | efried | sean-k-mooney: hold on a tick, I need to make an update to that. | |
| 15:04:49 | dansmith | melwitt: you probably would also be interested in approving my patch: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686232/ if you're around :) | |
| 15:07:13 | sean-k-mooney | efried: sure im on another meeting so im not going to update it until after | |
| 15:09:42 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add 'Core Liaison' section to spec template https://review.opendev.org/685857 | |
| 15:09:49 | efried | mriedem, sean-k-mooney: done ^ | |
| 15:12:06 | efried | dansmith: it would be neat if you would volunteer to sponsor https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/3/specs/ussuri/approved/provider-config-file.rst@319 | |
| 15:12:44 | efried | Since it was, like, your idea | |
| 15:12:58 | efried | (I know, I know. But still.) | |
| 15:15:05 | dansmith | efried: uh, wut | |
| 15:15:37 | dansmith | oh you mean I said something in a PTG a year ago? | |
| 15:15:42 | efried | yes | |
| 15:15:48 | efried | you can't un-say it | |
| 15:15:57 | mriedem | cdent: correct | |
| 15:15:59 | efried | it was more like six months ago | |
| 15:16:08 | efried | statute of limitations | |
| 15:16:18 | dansmith | sure, but just because I think that's the way it should be done if we're going to do it, doesn't mean I think we should or that I want to put my neck out there for it, right? | |
| 15:17:22 | dansmith | I guess it depends on whether we tie the sponsorship thing purely to "help the contributor with the process" or "I plan to review this myself" | |
| 15:18:01 | efried | yeah, good point; I would definitely like you to be involved in the reviews; I'm mentoring dustinc either way. | |
| 15:18:04 | dansmith | I'll look it over and see what I think, but I kinda feel like I want to know what the ratelimiting number is going to be before I decide what I'm going to throw my support behind | |
| 15:18:09 | efried | (and reviewing the code either way) | |
| 15:18:49 | efried | dansmith: fair, though for simplicity, it may help to keep those things mentally separate. You can sponsor a thing, but it could still fall off the bottom at spec freeze time. | |
| 15:19:28 | dansmith | efried: not at spec freeze time, but at the "what are the top 25 things" point right? | |
| 15:19:51 | sean-k-mooney | that i would expect to be around ptg time | |
| 15:20:03 | sean-k-mooney | or just after ptg but before spec freeze | |
| 15:20:14 | dansmith | neither of us are going to be at ptg, so... | |
| 15:20:19 | mriedem | efried: comments on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/ | |
| 15:20:30 | efried | dansmith: yes, I was thinking spec freeze time would be when we do the cut | |
| 15:20:39 | efried | but tbd | |
| 15:20:41 | dansmith | efried: wait, what? | |
| 15:21:04 | dansmith | efried: so we're going to put a bunch of specs in and then draw some line and what, remove the ones that aren't above the line? | |
| 15:21:18 | dansmith | maybe we need a different directory for almost-approved ? :) | |
| 15:21:41 | dansmith | btw, | |
| 15:21:44 | efried | yeah, something like that; if they're still unapproved we leave them unapproved (abandon, propose to backlog, whatever) and if they're already approved in the specs repo, we pull them out (and shunt them to backlog or whatever) | |
| 15:22:04 | dansmith | we should put them not in the approved directory then, IMHO | |
| 15:22:07 | dansmith | and btw, | |
| 15:22:15 | efried | this is probably why "direction" and "definition" are different fields in lp | |
| 15:22:26 | dansmith | I'm not trying to be too demanding, I just think we need to figure out what this process is if we're going to do it, | |
| 15:22:31 | mriedem | specs/ussuri/foreplay/ | |
| 15:22:52 | dansmith | because if I got my spec in the approved directory and then it gets ripped out later I'm going to be more confused than any of your bullets in your commit message :) | |
| 15:22:57 | efried | approving "definition" means "if we're going to do this, this is how we're going to do it"; approving "direction" means "we're going to do it, now" | |
| 15:23:21 | mriedem | i think i've been out-processed for once | |
| 15:23:26 | mriedem | gold star | |
| 15:23:29 | dansmith | okay so we're going to gate the real approval in launchpad? | |
| 15:24:03 | dansmith | and any code that makes it in before the spec freeze is golden, and then we make the 25 cut at spec freeze time of things that aren't done? | |
| 15:24:14 | efried | dansmith: I agree. Ideally I would like to have left all specs and bps unapproved until cut time, and the only merge the ones above the line. But since we've already merged some, that's messy. | |
| 15:24:30 | dansmith | efried: well, unmerge them if you want | |
| 15:24:48 | dansmith | but yes, this is sounding pretty messy one way or the other | |
| 15:25:20 | efried | yeah, thought about that too. stephenfin has code proposed for nova-net removal; we could merge some and then if that bp doesn't make the cut... in that case probably nbd to have partially done. | |
| 15:26:10 | stephenfin | in nova-net case, we've removes parts of it for a few cycles now | |