Posted	Nick	Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-10-03
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
15:26:13	efried	mriedem: Sigh, yeah, I continue trying to figure out how to make it as process-lite as possible.
15:26:26	stephenfin	removing things like the os-fping API in past releases
15:26:45	stephenfin	that doesn't apply to everything though, of course
15:27:12	dansmith	efried: I guess my point is, this is not going to be better for visibility to the contributors if it seems like we're figuring out the rules as we go, and things drag on as late as spec freeze
15:27:14	efried	dansmith: but yes, quite seriously, if we can get some kind of consensus that we're going to do this thing (even if the actual number is still open for negotiation), I could go unapprove everything.
15:27:24	dansmith	efried: so being upfront with them is good, but let's not have that backfire
15:28:08	dansmith	efried: okay, so if we do that, can I still land code for my spec that has not been approved? normally we would try to avoid that.. landing code until the design is accepted

Earlier   Later