Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2020-04-22
16:16:45 openstackgerrit Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: DNM: Testing tempest https://review.opendev.org/722063
16:41:50 bauzas cores, the prelude section is up for reviews https://review.opendev.org/#/c/721548/
16:41:57 bauzas reminder, we have to merge it before we cut RC1
16:47:18 openstackgerrit melanie witt proposed openstack/nova stable/stein: Add config option for neutron client retries https://review.opendev.org/722077
17:03:27 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: WIP block_device: Rework refresh_connection_info https://review.opendev.org/720769
17:27:54 gmann gibi: stephenfin its ready with gate result too - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720129/12
17:44:08 melwitt gmann: I think you have a small bug here?
17:44:09 melwitt https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720129/12/doc/source/configuration/policy-concepts.rst@204
17:45:24 gmann melwitt: ah, thanks. fixing
17:57:18 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add docs and releasenotes for BP policy-defaults-refresh https://review.opendev.org/720129
17:57:20 gmann melwitt: updated ^^
18:00:13 melwitt gmann: was there discussion around why this is in the "features" section rather than the "upgrade" section? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720129/13/releasenotes/notes/bp-policy-defaults-refresh-b8e6e2d6b1a7bc21.yaml@2
18:02:21 gmann melwitt: not yet. I put it in feature as this is disabled via flags to actually not breaking upgrade. if we enable scope or remove deprecated old rules then we can add that in upgrade section. is that correct way to think of upgrade section ?
18:02:52 melwitt gmann: yeah ... this case is not so straightforward I guess. dansmith thoughts? ^
18:04:11 dansmith I don't really think that it's appropriate to call it a feature. With the exception of someone sitting around hoping we'll make our policy more granular, most people will see it as an upgrade-related piece of homework
18:04:42 dansmith upgrade items aren't necessarily things that break or need to happen during the upgrade, they're often "this thing that used to be like A is now like B"
18:05:03 melwitt yeah, my concern is that if we don't put it in the upgrade section, people won't see as clearly that they have homework to do before W
18:05:12 dansmith agree
18:05:16 gmann i see. that is good point
18:05:38 dansmith I would put something general in the prelude as a "hey ya'll, we're refactorin' this shiznat over the next few cycles, just FYI"
18:05:43 gmann should I move the complete section in upgrade or keeping scope things in feature as well ?
18:05:46 dansmith and keep the homework bits in upgrade
18:06:39 gmann dansmith: this is prelude, is it fine/enough - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/721548/6/releasenotes/notes/ussuri-prelude-4b96f1244cefcdf4.yaml@36
18:07:31 gmann I need to add the doc link there once that is ready.
18:08:14 dansmith yeah, seems probably like enough, but definitely "see $link for more details on what is changing"
18:08:41 melwitt yeah, that's a todo after we merge this doc on policy changes
18:09:05 gmann ok. let me update the releasenotes
18:09:59 melwitt as for the section for the policy reno, I guess I was thinking to just s/features/upgrade/ for the reno. scope types are kind of a feature (leveraging a keystone feature) but we're going to make them the default, which means operators have homework to do to (1) educating their users to use scoped tokens and (2) get their policies enabled with enforcing scope,
18:10:30 melwitt and then we're going to remove the old policy way in W, so it's not really optional in the end
18:11:04 dansmith A short note in -features might be appropriate too, but if it's in the prelude, I think that's enough
18:11:23 melwitt ok, then either way
18:12:37 sean-k-mooney by the way i assume the we wont be doing something similar for unified limits since we wont have part of it merged in ussuri and its just going to be called out in victoria instead
18:12:54 sean-k-mooney that is a similar hay we are refactroing this change
18:13:24 sean-k-mooney but it wont really affect people for ussuri and they wont have homework yet so i guess its not a concern right now
18:13:33 melwitt yeah nothing yet until V
18:25:54 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add docs and releasenotes for BP policy-defaults-refresh https://review.opendev.org/720129
20:56:47 openstackgerrit François Palin proposed openstack/nova stable/train: Add retry to cinder API calls related to volume detach https://review.opendev.org/722142
21:20:58 gmann melwitt: thanks for review. can i fix these 'scoped' word quickly ? if you are around for re+2 - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720129/14
21:21:11 melwitt gmann: yeah that'd be great
21:22:14 gmann ok
21:22:53 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add docs and releasenotes for BP policy-defaults-refresh https://review.opendev.org/720129
21:23:12 gmann melwitt: ^^ done
21:23:48 melwitt +2
#openstack-nova - 2020-04-23
01:28:45 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Pass the actual target in quota class policy https://review.opendev.org/720042
01:52:30 gmann \o/ finally merged
02:06:10 openstackgerrit Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add docs and releasenotes for BP policy-defaults-refresh https://review.opendev.org/720129
02:30:10 openstackgerrit Jie Li proposed openstack/nova master: replace the "hide_hypervisor_id" to "hw:hide_hypervisor_id" https://review.opendev.org/722187
02:58:37 openstackgerrit Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Update bp/destroy-instance-with-datavolume SPEC https://review.opendev.org/722194
03:00:40 brinzhang gibi, dansmith, gmann: I was update the bp/destroy-instance-with-datavolume SPEC https://review.opendev.org/#/c/722194, please review if you have free time
03:01:17 gmann melwitt: need your +2 again. fixed one link in reno - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720129/16
03:02:09 gmann brinzhang: thanks. i will check tomorrow. this is delete-on-termination spec update right ?
03:02:27 brinzhang gmann: thanks
03:02:30 gmann i mean as per latest code we merged as PUT not PATCH
03:02:49 brinzhang gmann: yes, it's the delete-on-termination spec update
03:03:43 brinzhang maybe I should rename this patch
03:08:13 gmann ok. got it. thanks
03:16:19 brinzhang gmann: thanks too
04:08:01 openstackgerrit Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Update SPEC: Using PUT instead of PATCH API to update delete_on_termination https://review.opendev.org/722194
06:58:10 gibi brinzhang_: ack, I will look at it probably next week
06:59:24 brinzhang_ gibi: ack, it's not in a hurry
06:59:33 brinzhang_ gibi: thanks
07:30:03 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Add docs and releasenotes for BP policy-defaults-refresh https://review.opendev.org/720129
07:34:40 bauzas gibi: gmann: I'll provide a FUP for ^ for the reno prelude https://review.opendev.org/#/c/721548/
07:40:19 openstackgerrit Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: FUP: Amend ussuri prelude to add docs for policy concepts https://review.opendev.org/722220
07:40:27 bauzas gmann: gibi: p
07:40:30 gibi bauzas: cool
07:41:31 gibi thanks. I'm +A on the prelude and +2 on the FUP
07:41:41 bauzas nice
07:41:43 bauzas thanks
07:41:58 bauzas gibi: any urgent change review we should do before RC1 ?
07:42:47 bauzas gibi: given the owner haven't provided a new revision for https://review.opendev.org/#/c/719163/, I'll remove the bug tag
07:43:36 bauzas oh you already did :)
07:43:57 gibi yepp, I pinged you during the week about it but figured you were busy so went ahead and removed it
07:44:10 gibi I can pick that fixup later if the author did not show up
07:44:39 gibi bauzas: there is a simple revert we need to merge before RC1 https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718630
07:45:04 gibi and the ussuri RPC alias https://review.opendev.org/#/c/719315/
07:45:32 gibi I'm not tracking anyithing else for RC1 at the moment
07:58:31 bauzas cool
08:10:29 bauzas gibi: fwiw, all the RPC APIs should have aliases...
08:11:19 bauzas gibi: but for example, see the last alias for the scheduler... https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/rpcapi.py#L120
08:18:20 gibi bauzas: I do the aliasing based on https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/ptl-guide.html
08:18:32 gibi "In the past, we used to update all service version aliases (example: https://review.opendev.org/230132) but since we really only support compute being backlevel/old during a rolling upgrade, we only need to update the compute service alias, see related IRC discussion: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2018-08-08.log.html#t2018-08-08T17:13:45"
08:55:23 bauzas gibi: oh ok thanks
09:01:49 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Ussuri 21.0.0 prelude section https://review.opendev.org/721548
09:59:11 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Update compute rpc version alias for ussuri https://review.opendev.org/719315
11:09:44 kashyap artom: I've responded to your feedback; thanks for the commentary. Hope that makes sense.
11:09:49 kashyap artom: Also see the important Plan-B
11:27:07 zigo bauzas: Hi there! I suppose FUP doesn't mean what's in this urban dictionnary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FUP :)
11:27:33 zigo Fair Usage Policy ?
11:27:41 kashyap zigo: Yeah, that's a ridiculous acronym that I keep saying people not to use.
11:27:50 kashyap Just say 'fix-up'.
11:28:08 kashyap Clear writing is a sign of clear thinking. Don't use mindless acronyms.
11:28:19 kashyap But that requires hardwork, and it's easy to be lazy
11:28:36 kashyap [Not saying it anyone in particular, BTW :D, just saying it out loud.]
11:28:57 zigo DMT TLA ... :P
11:30:02 zigo TMD TLA I mean.
11:41:42 bauzas zigo: Follow-Up Patch ;)
11:46:35 zigo :)
12:29:01 lyarwood stephenfin: random question, any idea where _get_vcpu_total was removed in the libvirt driver? I'm trying to rebase a series from mdbooth and I can't find where it was removed and what it was replaced with.
12:29:23 stephenfin it would have been in Train

Earlier   Later