| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-12-07 | |||
| 16:30:19 | bauzas | but I want to make sure there is progress on it | |
| 16:30:47 | bauzas | hopefully my gerrit update will remind Ade there is work to do | |
| 16:31:26 | gmann | there are few tempest one (in the series of those deps) also needs to merged before | |
| 16:31:36 | gmann | which is under review | |
| 16:32:16 | bauzas | yeah looks like there are deps | |
| 16:32:26 | bauzas | quite a massive work | |
| 16:32:38 | gmann | and this is goal proposal in case to know broader pic #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/816587 | |
| 16:32:51 | bauzas | haha | |
| 16:32:53 | bauzas | gtk | |
| 16:33:50 | bauzas | thanks gmann | |
| 16:34:12 | bauzas | anyway, I think we discuss about all the subject, next one | |
| 16:34:19 | bauzas | discussed* (dang) | |
| 16:34:30 | bauzas | oh, my change | |
| 16:34:42 | bauzas | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816861 is ready for reviews | |
| 16:34:50 | bauzas | I dropped the whole "I'm the owner, help me" thing | |
| 16:35:28 | bauzas | so, this is now only about "I'm non-core and I like this change, so I'd appreciate if cores could review it given I commit myself to review it too" | |
| 16:35:56 | bauzas | good opportunity for review visibility, just sayin' | |
| 16:35:57 | sean-k-mooney | ya i think that is a good chagne | |
| 16:36:03 | gibi | bauzas: I will get back to that too | |
| 16:37:07 | bauzas | thanks | |
| 16:37:17 | sean-k-mooney | if we are more or less happy with it i can start drafting the project config change for it but ill waith until after the spec review day next week to work on it | |
| 16:37:34 | bauzas | the idea is to give visibility on review time for non-cores and giving them trust | |
| 16:37:59 | gmann | I think this is good. and if every non core adding RP as +1 on their patches then we can re-iterate it | |
| 16:38:08 | bauzas | so, if you're non-core and you'd appreciate some visibility on review time, this is for you | |
| 16:38:42 | sean-k-mooney | i think this is more or less like +1 ing your own patch and we can treat it as such | |
| 16:38:58 | gmann | yeah, 'yes i reviewed it and it looks important to me so can core have a look' | |
| 16:39:01 | sean-k-mooney | e.g. you should in general avoid it but you may still want to do it in some cases | |
| 16:39:11 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I punted this use case | |
| 16:39:20 | gmann | may be good to mention in that doc for more clarity | |
| 16:39:38 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: ya that is ok | |
| 16:39:39 | bauzas | comments are then appreciated on the change itself :) | |
| 16:39:54 | bauzas | next one | |
| 16:39:56 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:40:05 | bauzas | elodilles: your dog. | |
| 16:40:26 | elodilles | well, this will be short as not so much happening around stable branches | |
| 16:40:34 | elodilles | * stable gates should be OK (though no patches have been merged in the last couple of days) | |
| 16:40:45 | elodilles | that's it ^^^ | |
| 16:41:06 | bauzas | huzzah | |
| 16:41:28 | bauzas | I remember I promised some reviews | |
| 16:41:37 | bauzas | but lacked my homework | |
| 16:42:11 | bauzas | ok, moving on then | |
| 16:42:18 | bauzas | #topic Sub/related team Highlights | |
| 16:42:22 | bauzas | Libvirt (lyarwood) | |
| 16:42:27 | bauzas | nothing special to mention ? | |
| 16:42:43 | lyarwood | Nothing from me this week, FWIW we will need a new owner for this point in the future. | |
| 16:42:49 | lyarwood | I'll talk about that more later | |
| 16:43:03 | bauzas | you're right | |
| 16:43:12 | bauzas | or, | |
| 16:43:22 | bauzas | not sure we still need to have a subteam | |
| 16:43:37 | bauzas | given afaik only lee and me work on this :) | |
| 16:43:38 | lyarwood | Either or, it's up to the remaining team | |
| 16:43:46 | bauzas | who's teamed up ? | |
| 16:44:12 | bauzas | anyway, we could make a call at next meeting | |
| 16:44:15 | lyarwood | I mean the wider Nova team ;) | |
| 16:45:10 | bauzas | ahah | |
| 16:46:43 | bauzas | anyway, last topic | |
| 16:46:48 | bauzas | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:46:53 | bauzas | (bauzas) Holiday period and nova audience for both reviews and meetings | |
| 16:47:07 | bauzas | so, we'll have less people around in the last weeks of Dec | |
| 16:48:17 | sean-k-mooney | i expect other then perhaps alex there will likely be no? cores around for the last 2 weeks | |
| 16:48:30 | bauzas | I dunnoi | |
| 16:48:35 | gibi | I will be off from 20th | |
| 16:48:36 | bauzas | we can discuss if people want | |
| 16:48:42 | gibi | and back at 10th | |
| 16:49:22 | sean-k-mooney | 17th -> 4th in my case. | |
| 16:49:34 | bauzas | ok, Dec 21 -> Jan 3rd for me | |
| 16:49:36 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think we really need to spend much time on it | |
| 16:49:47 | gmann | I will be on and off during last week dec | |
| 16:49:58 | sean-k-mooney | i assume we are going to cancel meetings for the last 2 weeks | |
| 16:49:58 | lyarwood | 17th -> 4th here also | |
| 16:50:15 | sean-k-mooney | the 21th and 28th | |
| 16:50:18 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah I was about to propose to cancel the meetings | |
| 16:50:28 | gibi | agree with cancelling those | |
| 16:50:30 | elodilles | (20th -> 4th) | |
| 16:50:53 | gmann | +1 on canceling | |
| 16:51:06 | elodilles | ++ | |
| 16:51:10 | sean-k-mooney | unless there is an object i would suggest just sending a mail to the list to inform those that are not here | |
| 16:51:18 | gmann | 21 and 28 one right? | |
| 16:51:24 | bauzas | correct | |
| 16:51:29 | gmann | k | |
| 16:52:20 | bauzas | ok, looks like we have an agreement | |
| 16:53:02 | bauzas | #agreed Cancel Dec 21th and Dec 28th nova meetings given there are less audience | |
| 16:53:13 | bauzas | I'll write an email about it | |
| 16:53:56 | bauzas | and thanks for providing your time-offs, appreciated. | |
| 16:54:14 | bauzas | we can look at this meeting' notes to remember when people are around | |
| 16:54:43 | bauzas | last item on our agenda, | |
| 16:54:51 | bauzas | (pslestang) Specless BP approval request for soft deleting instance action | |
| 16:54:59 | bauzas | pslestang: your turn | |
| 16:55:07 | pslestang | sure | |
| 16:56:14 | pslestang | so at OVH we do not use the restore instance feature and we would like the instance action do be soft deleted when an instance is soft deleted, this is why we propose to add a configuration option to soft delete instance action on instance soft delete | |
| 16:56:29 | bauzas | this one, I'm OK with a specless BP | |
| 16:56:30 | bauzas | but, | |
| 16:56:39 | bauzas | "We should also implement the possibility to retrieve deleted instance actions as we do for instances." seems like an API change, right? | |
| 16:57:22 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: so just to be clear the meaning of soft delete upstream is the row is kept in the db but marked as delete | |
| 16:57:40 | pslestang | bauzas: I did not dive into the API so need to be checked | |
| 16:57:40 | sean-k-mooney | so that it can be mared as not deleted again later | |
| 16:57:46 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: yes | |
| 16:57:58 | bauzas | are we sure that instance-actions table is soft-deletable already ? | |
| 16:58:15 | sean-k-mooney | i tought it was | |
| 16:58:24 | bauzas | I dunno, hence my question | |