| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-09-16 | |||
| 15:07:33 | melwitt | hm... that's weird, I thought we had added renos | |
| 15:07:41 | gibi | yeah I do remember we added | |
| 15:07:44 | gibi | running tox locally now | |
| 15:08:57 | melwitt | yeah, just checked and consumer types definitely had a reno | |
| 15:09:32 | gibi | hm, locally I get a proper releasenotes generated | |
| 15:09:46 | gibi | we have renos for 1.37 and 1.38 | |
| 15:10:02 | gibi | that is the two feature we added in Xena | |
| 15:10:54 | melwitt | hm.. ok I'll try to figure out what's wrong with it. I don't remember off the top of my head how the doc publishing works but I think I could find it | |
| 15:11:25 | gibi | thanks | |
| 15:11:47 | sean-k-mooney | that i think is based on tags | |
| 15:12:00 | sean-k-mooney | or something in the comit | |
| 15:12:10 | sean-k-mooney | that marks the start/end of a releas | |
| 15:13:01 | melwitt | well they are supposed to show up in the "unreleased" area soon after merge | |
| 15:13:16 | melwitt | the creation of the release page like "Xena" is a different thing | |
| 15:13:28 | sean-k-mooney | yes but they might be showing up in a xena section | |
| 15:14:17 | melwitt | there is no xena section. the notes are nowhere | |
| 15:14:50 | bauzas | placement should have an unreleased.rst file | |
| 15:14:59 | bauzas | if not, it's something we could do | |
| 15:15:02 | melwitt | I get why we don't have a xena section, we probably didn't do a release yet. but the notes should be in the unreleased area and there's nothing there | |
| 15:15:05 | gibi | maybe we need this patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/809365 | |
| 15:15:30 | bauzas | gibi: no this is the xena stable one | |
| 15:15:37 | bauzas | once we branch with RC1 | |
| 15:15:39 | bauzas | oh wait | |
| 15:15:45 | bauzas | we did merge RC1 | |
| 15:15:47 | melwitt | yeah, I'm saying that normally notes go live on the doc page in "unreleased" soon after merge | |
| 15:15:54 | bauzas | hence the fact you no longer see them | |
| 15:15:55 | gibi | yepp placement has RC1 I think | |
| 15:16:02 | bauzas | gibi: I approved it sooner | |
| 15:16:08 | bauzas | hence why they disappeared | |
| 15:16:20 | bauzas | okay, +2ing the placement stable/xena reno one | |
| 15:16:32 | melwitt | oh.. ok | |
| 15:16:37 | melwitt | thanks for explaining that bauzas | |
| 15:16:51 | bauzas | melwitt: sorry, my fault | |
| 15:16:56 | bauzas | I approved RC1 cut | |
| 15:17:04 | bauzas | but I should have thought about the reno patches | |
| 15:17:13 | bauzas | ideally the release team could make them dependent | |
| 15:17:22 | bauzas | between the release proposal and the reno update | |
| 15:17:42 | gibi | bauzas: this is not a fault. first we need to approve the release then the tooling proposes the stable branch creation and then the stable branch setup patches | |
| 15:18:03 | bauzas | that also explains why gibi was getting the notes | |
| 15:18:13 | bauzas | he didn't cut yet I guess :p | |
| 15:18:21 | gibi | I did not pull from remote | |
| 15:18:23 | gibi | so yes | |
| 15:18:34 | bauzas | et voila | |
| 15:18:40 | bauzas | even, et voilà | |
| 15:18:45 | bauzas | (with an accent) | |
| 15:18:54 | melwitt | fahncy | |
| 15:19:16 | bauzas | gibi: thanks for explaining | |
| 15:19:26 | bauzas | so the patches only appear once we branch ? | |
| 15:19:29 | gibi | I hope I'm correct :D | |
| 15:19:49 | gibi | bauzas: it cannot appeare before as there is no stable/xena to propose them against | |
| 15:20:04 | bauzas | that's an explanation :D | |
| 15:21:21 | bauzas | that now said, gibi, I didn't had time to work on sean-k-mooney's doc change | |
| 15:21:23 | bauzas | :/ | |
| 15:21:34 | bauzas | I guess we should approve the prelude and cut RC1 | |
| 15:21:39 | gibi | bauzas: then we go with the current reno | |
| 15:21:45 | bauzas | yeah | |
| 15:21:46 | gibi | then doc can be backported | |
| 15:21:53 | bauzas | we could update the prelude later | |
| 15:22:02 | bauzas | that works | |
| 15:22:03 | gibi | ok | |
| 15:22:19 | bauzas | it's just, we need a prelude section before RC1 in order to see it for 24.0.0 | |
| 15:22:35 | bauzas | or the prelude would only appear in 24.0.1 | |
| 15:22:44 | gibi | I see | |
| 15:22:45 | gibi | cool | |
| 15:22:59 | bauzas | but once we merge stuff for 24.0.0, touching the prelude would also update the 24.0.0 (if I'm not wrong) | |
| 15:23:21 | bauzas | that's one of the reno odds | |
| 15:24:11 | bauzas | dansmith has a point, revising the prelude | |
| 15:24:11 | gibi | ok, then merge the prelude | |
| 15:24:15 | bauzas | gibi: hold your approval | |
| 15:24:16 | gibi | ohh, sure | |
| 15:24:43 | bauzas | I mean, don't explicitely approve :p | |
| 15:25:51 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Add the Xena prelude section https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/807786 | |
| 15:26:14 | bauzas | gibi: dansmith: melwitt: any other around ^ | |
| 15:26:22 | dansmith | way ahead of you | |
| 15:26:50 | gibi | done | |
| 15:26:52 | bauzas | dansmith: man, you're way too much productive compared to me | |
| 15:27:08 | dansmith | I was just waiting for it after the mention above ;) | |
| 15:27:12 | melwitt | seeya soon, highlights o/ | |
| 15:27:16 | bauzas | ++ | |
| 15:27:33 | dansmith | oh man, an early morning melwitt spotting! | |
| 15:27:40 | dansmith | well, "early" | |
| 15:28:34 | melwitt | uh huh | |
| 15:29:01 | dansmith | :P | |
| 16:05:24 | fungi | elodilles: i noticed yesterday you were pushing forward on some nova stable branch changes (thanks!) and wanted to mention that the vmt is waiting for the rest of https://review.opendev.org/q/I95f68be76330ff09e5eabb5ef8dd9a18f5547866 to merge so we can publish errata for ossa-2021-002 | |
| 16:06:19 | fungi | sean-k-mooney: on that note, the failures on 806629 imply that fix may not be backportable as-is to train? | |
| 16:07:03 | fungi | looks like it could be as simple as a couple of missing imports though | |
| 16:10:07 | melwitt | fungi: hm, looks like the original fix didn't merge yet on train as well | |
| 16:10:38 | fungi | melwitt: oh, interesting yeah | |
| 16:11:31 | fungi | that being 791807 | |
| 16:11:40 | melwitt | fungi: I'll help review the ones that I didn't propose, I didn't realize we needed to wait for ussuri and train, I had thought the original fix notice went out after the victoria change merged | |
| 16:12:34 | melwitt | yeah | |
| 16:13:11 | fungi | melwitt: we need stable/ussuri merged first ideally in this case, since it's still in a maintained state (projected transition to extended maintenance is november) | |
| 16:13:37 | melwitt | fungi: ack, will prioritize | |
| 16:13:38 | fungi | i didn't realize the original train fix never got approved either | |
| 16:14:15 | fungi | but you're right that's less important, i can in theory link to the unmerged patch for train though i'm hesitant to do so unless it's actually passing ci jobs | |
| 16:15:18 | fungi | as i could be inadvertently encouraging someone to merge a change which just causes nova to start crashing | |
| 16:15:33 | fungi | er, to import a change into their deployment i mean | |
| 16:17:25 | opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova stable/ussuri: address open redirect with 3 forward slashes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/806628 | |
| 16:17:26 | melwitt | fungi: yeah makes sense. the train change (the original) is a combo of two patches squashed together bc a test change was needed in order for the test to run on python < 3.6. and the followup should be rebased over it | |
| 16:18:04 | sean-k-mooney | so presumable if we rebase the train one on top of the first patch that might fix it? | |