| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-12-14 | |||
| 16:09:48 | sean-k-mooney | well not all project have a m2 spec freeze | |
| 16:09:59 | sean-k-mooney | so it may be less impactful on others | |
| 16:10:05 | sean-k-mooney | not form me | |
| 16:10:19 | gmann | yeah, its project to project | |
| 16:10:20 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: you're right, this is maybe us who haven't considered it correctly when we thought about Yoga-2 as a spec freeze | |
| 16:10:34 | bauzas | anyway, not a problmem | |
| 16:10:48 | bauzas | we'll see how things go after new year | |
| 16:10:57 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:11:02 | bauzas | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+(project:openstack/nova+OR+project:openstack/placement)+label:Review-Priority%252B1 | |
| 16:11:07 | bauzas | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816861 bauzas proposing a documentation change for helping contributors to ask for reviews, needs a second +2 | |
| 16:11:13 | bauzas | thanks gibi btw. | |
| 16:11:29 | gibi | thanks bauzas | |
| 16:11:49 | gibi | the current list of review prio looks OK to me | |
| 16:11:49 | gmann | I am ok with that, just 1 comment i added to make it clear on non-core adding +1 | |
| 16:11:51 | bauzas | about the unified limits series, I was confused with what to review but this is fixed | |
| 16:12:00 | gmann | but that is ok to add in followup also, not blocker | |
| 16:12:08 | bauzas | after discussing it with melwitt internally | |
| 16:12:23 | bauzas | gmann: ack, will look | |
| 16:12:48 | bauzas | I really want us to merge the unified limits series, this has been overdue for too long | |
| 16:12:58 | sean-k-mooney | i agree | |
| 16:13:17 | bauzas | so I'll continue to review, but given melwitt's on PTO, I guess the progress would be better after next year | |
| 16:13:18 | sean-k-mooney | unified limist assumign its readay i think would be a big win and release highlight | |
| 16:14:02 | gibi | there is a list of patches on the yoga-python-testing that we need to look at I will add them to priorities | |
| 16:14:13 | bauzas | any series or patches that people would want to highlight to the team for reviews ? | |
| 16:14:14 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: on a related note do we have a nova spec for the chagne in RBAC direction and what that means for nova | |
| 16:14:22 | bauzas | heh, jinxed by gibi | |
| 16:14:27 | bauzas | gibi: patches ? | |
| 16:14:32 | gibi | yep | |
| 16:14:37 | gibi | gmann has a list of them | |
| 16:14:40 | bauzas | gibi: I mean, links ? | |
| 16:15:09 | gmann | yeah, this is list for auditing all policy #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/rbac | |
| 16:15:11 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/819208 | |
| 16:15:15 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-traits/+/819205 | |
| 16:15:18 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-placement/+/819203 | |
| 16:15:21 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821636 | |
| 16:15:25 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/819206 | |
| 16:15:30 | gmann | and we can do audit in wiki page in one shot or in code changes also. | |
| 16:15:41 | gmann | gibi: thanks | |
| 16:16:25 | bauzas | gibi: I marked the nova and placement ones with the R-P flag | |
| 16:16:33 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: that was for RBAC one, and we have BP also for that #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-defaults-refresh-2 | |
| 16:16:50 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: we said on a meeting yes for a specless BP approval | |
| 16:16:54 | gmann | yeah | |
| 16:16:56 | bauzas | (for the policy thing) | |
| 16:17:01 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: ok | |
| 16:17:16 | sean-k-mooney | normally i think we shoudl treath policy like an api change | |
| 16:17:31 | sean-k-mooney | and use a spec for it but we can proceed without one for now | |
| 16:17:46 | bauzas | this is the defaults, but meh | |
| 16:17:47 | gmann | I have pushed SYSTEM reader->system admin on top of dansmith server policy changes. and I will be pushing more changes this week | |
| 16:17:58 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well to me policy change are interop issues | |
| 16:18:09 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I don't disagree | |
| 16:18:13 | sean-k-mooney | so change default is a breaking change but lest not repoen that | |
| 16:18:27 | bauzas | but for users, those are transparent if defaults correctly scoped | |
| 16:18:36 | gmann | well policy change does not require spec always. we have fixed (new or default change) many as bug also | |
| 16:19:09 | gmann | yeah, as it is overall change in RBAC, and as described in goal we have way that users will be broken by default | |
| 16:19:23 | gmann | and migration path and plan for them to new policy in next release | |
| 16:19:45 | gmann | *user will not be broken | |
| 16:19:53 | gmann | sorry for typo. :) | |
| 16:20:11 | sean-k-mooney | just to not consume all the time on this is the plan this cycle to walk back the work we had done and focus on identifying the work need with most of the new work happing next cycle | |
| 16:20:20 | sean-k-mooney | i will review the wiki you provided offline | |
| 16:20:40 | gmann | yeah, specially we are isloating the system form project resource and no system reader in yoga | |
| 16:20:52 | sean-k-mooney | ack | |
| 16:21:11 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: thanks, wiki audit will be helpful | |
| 16:21:48 | bauzas | I think we also said that the TC would document this | |
| 16:22:02 | bauzas | the policy changes, I mean | |
| 16:22:14 | sean-k-mooney | its in the tc spec to some degree | |
| 16:22:14 | bauzas | I even wrote this in the BP when I approved | |
| 16:22:20 | gmann | basically this is what we will do (phase1 ) in nova in yoga #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/consistent-and-secure-rbac.html#phase-1 | |
| 16:22:22 | bauzas | that's my point | |
| 16:22:24 | sean-k-mooney | i would like to see a nova game plan for how to aling to that | |
| 16:22:35 | sean-k-mooney | which is why i ask about a nova spec | |
| 16:22:57 | sean-k-mooney | but if most of that work will happen next cycle im fine with the wiki and specless blueprint for this cycle | |
| 16:22:59 | bauzas | that's why we said we can start to digest and see whether we need to document more the changes in the spec | |
| 16:23:03 | bauzas | right | |
| 16:23:08 | bauzas | moving on ? | |
| 16:23:12 | sean-k-mooney | +1 | |
| 16:23:16 | gmann | yeah, its there in TC goal | |
| 16:23:41 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:23:46 | bauzas | stable gates are not blocked | |
| 16:23:49 | bauzas | shit | |
| 16:23:56 | bauzas | elodilles: it's you who should tell it | |
| 16:24:06 | elodilles | :) | |
| 16:24:12 | elodilles | so they are not blocked | |
| 16:24:16 | gibi | :D | |
| 16:24:18 | elodilles | (as far as I've seen it before the meeting with a quick double-check) | |
| 16:24:28 | gmann | i thought it is very blocked and bauzas typo :) | |
| 16:24:30 | elodilles | though on some branches (wallaby, victoria?) patches need many rechecks to be able to merge | |
| 16:24:58 | bauzas | interesting dystopîa | |
| 16:25:05 | elodilles | gmann: hopefully not o:) | |
| 16:25:05 | bauzas | between gmann and elodilles | |
| 16:25:16 | gmann | \o/ | |
| 16:25:42 | elodilles | or are they? :-o | |
| 16:27:50 | bauzas | so, what to say ? I guess we need to double check | |
| 16:27:51 | bauzas | :) | |
| 16:28:32 | elodilles | i haven't seen any blocking issue, but i'm now confused :) | |
| 16:28:58 | elodilles | gmann: did i miss something? | |
| 16:29:16 | gmann | ah no, I have not seen too. I think recheck is more needed that is uit | |
| 16:29:18 | gmann | it | |
| 16:29:44 | gmann | I saw in other project stable/train but not nova | |
| 16:30:17 | elodilles | oh, thanks | |
| 16:30:43 | elodilles | cool for nova then | |