| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-12-07 | |||
| 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 | |
| 16:58:31 | pslestang | bauzas: yes it is | |
| 16:58:33 | bauzas | if yes, looks like a config option setting | |
| 16:58:35 | sean-k-mooney | so that if we resotred a soft deleted instance its action woudl be preserved | |
| 16:58:44 | bauzas | if no, this is a db change hence a spec required | |
| 16:59:00 | sean-k-mooney | pslestang: so today we shoudl be soft deleting them already | |
| 16:59:03 | pslestang | the instance_actions table is soft-deletable | |
| 16:59:15 | sean-k-mooney | and the new config option you would instead hard delete them | |
| 16:59:32 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah I'm assuming we would mark the records soft-deleted in the DB and we would also unmark them when undeleting | |
| 16:59:47 | bauzas | actually, we're at time | |
| 16:59:54 | bauzas | but we can continue off the meeting | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.log.html | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.txt | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2021/nova.2021-12-07-16.00.html | |
| 17:00:09 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Dec 7 17:00:09 2021 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:00:09 | bauzas | #endmeeting | |
| 17:00:15 | gibi | I think there is a reason to keep the actions visible after the instance is deleted | |
| 17:00:28 | lyarwood | fun, I did have another topic | |
| 17:00:32 | lyarwood | A quick heads for upstream folks who might not be aware, I'll be stepping away from OpenStack in the new year from ~Jan 28th, moving to a different project within Red Hat. My focus until then is to close out the various open specs, bugfixes etc that I currently have. | |
| 17:00:34 | pslestang | sean-k-mooney: today when we soft-delete an instance instance actions are not soft-deleted (I suppose to let the operator have an history on a deleted instane) | |
| 17:00:56 | gibi | lyarwood: I will miss you! | |
| 17:01:04 | gibi | lyarwood: but good luck! | |
| 17:01:08 | elodilles | lyarwood: :-o | |