Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2022-02-08
16:14:39 gibi besides the one we discussed
16:14:48 bauzas #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag.
16:14:58 gibi the nova-specs doc build is broken due to sphinx 4.4.0
16:15:04 gibi fix is here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/828368
16:15:20 gibi and here https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/10178 (thanks to stephenfin)
16:15:23 bauzas saw it, had no time to vote yet
16:15:34 bauzas vote coming up after the meeting
16:15:38 gibi cool
16:15:39 gibi thanks
16:15:59 gmann +A, 4.4.0 has caused on ext link other repo too
16:15:59 stephenfin please pile on the latter bug (+1) if you can :)
16:16:16 gmann in governance doc etc
16:16:21 bauzas damn, you beat me
16:16:26 gibi gmann: is there a global requiremnet fix up for it or should I push?
16:16:39 stephenfin and indicate on the bug if there are other failures other than nova-specs. Sounds like there are
16:16:49 gmann gibi: that was different i fixed few on governance repo but removed ext_link from election repo as thre were many to fix
16:17:18 gmann example #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/825257
16:17:29 bauzas stephenfin: I'm afraid we would need to modify our specs and docs in order to make them compliant with a foreseenable future of sphinx ?
16:17:45 gmann but that was for extlink in conf
16:17:47 stephenfin I don't think so. I think it's a bug
16:17:49 sean-k-mooney i think in this cae there was only 1 duplicate link
16:17:50 bauzas stephenfin: or does sphinx team said sorry it was an unwanted regression?
16:17:57 gibi gmann: ohh OK, so that is different
16:18:10 gmann there were many change in 4.4.0 which broke our existing doc
16:18:11 stephenfin doing e.g. [1] style referencing is a perfectly reasonable thing to do
16:18:13 bauzas stephenfin: ok, so bug it was, not a feature
16:18:36 bauzas stephenfin: we'll propose you a full-time job for fixing our docs then
16:18:40 stephenfin Both. It was a feature that was a breaking change
16:18:43 sean-k-mooney yep within a singel doc it shoudl be fine
16:18:46 gibi sean-k-mooney: nope, there are many, sphinx gave up parsing at the first duplicate
16:18:52 sean-k-mooney ah ok
16:19:07 sean-k-mooney so the "feature" was treating them a global link targets
16:19:12 sean-k-mooney not local to the current doc?
16:19:14 gibi sean-k-mooney: something like that
16:19:22 sean-k-mooney that would be a problem ya
16:19:48 stephenfin shouldn't have happened in minor release or arguably at all. Context in the upstream bug https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/10177
16:19:58 sean-k-mooney ack
16:19:58 bauzas just to make it clear, that means we have homework before accepting 4.4.x, right?
16:20:11 sean-k-mooney well or we can see if we can get this reverted
16:20:14 sean-k-mooney or made configurable
16:20:15 bauzas stephenfin: ah I see
16:20:25 gibi sean-k-mooney: yepp, stephenfin proposed the revert :)
16:20:42 sean-k-mooney if we need too its proably scriptable to make them unique
16:20:55 sean-k-mooney but ya lets see what happens with stephenfin pr
16:21:23 gmann another gate failure we discussed in QA meeting is about failure in devstack-platform-centos-9-stream job which seems 100 % #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?job_name=devstack-platform-centos-9-stream&skip=0
16:21:38 gmann rescue server test failing on volume detach #link https://a886e0e70a23f464643f-7cd608bf14cafb686390b86bc06cde2a.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/827576/6/check/devstack-platform-centos-9-stream/53de74e/testr_results.html
16:21:57 gmann I have not checked log yet, in case anyone aware of it?
16:22:42 gibi that feels new
16:22:48 gibi at least to me
16:24:11 gmann ok, let me see if I get any info in logs and then will report bug
16:24:22 bauzas the error seems weird
16:24:22 gibi thanks
16:24:59 bauzas InvalidVolume
16:25:20 bauzas but a timeout
16:25:46 bauzas which indicates something bad happening on the cinder side
16:26:50 gibi affraid it is libvirt device detach issue again
16:26:51 gibi https://zuul.openstack.org/build/3e24d977991d4536b6279afd7f3b5d56/log/controller/logs/screen-n-cpu.txt?severity=4#49433
16:28:21 bauzas gibi: on centos then ?
16:28:53 gibi for some reason it is hitting only that centos job but hitting it hard
16:29:03 gmann yeah
16:29:59 bauzas ok, I guess we need to investigate more, next
16:30:07 bauzas #topic Release Planning
16:30:12 bauzas #link https://releases.openstack.org/yoga/schedule.html#y-ff FeatureFreeze in 2.5 weeks
16:30:17 bauzas #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-yoga-blueprint-status Etherpad for blueprints tracking
16:30:30 bauzas thanks gibi for having made a couple of insighful reviews
16:30:36 bauzas I started to review as well
16:31:14 bauzas folks, just a reminder to use this etherpad for coordinating review requests and comments
16:31:41 bauzas any particular BP someone wanting to address by now ? (provided this is not about asking reviews)
16:32:32 gmann added link for policy refresh 2 BP and moved up for review section #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-yoga-blueprint-status#L40
16:32:49 gmann It is not complete yet, I am working on system_reader conversion
16:33:00 gmann but existing patches is up for review
16:33:12 gmann dansmith: ^^ I am +2 on your patches for server policy
16:33:17 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova-specs master: Avoid Sphinx 4.4.0 to fix specs doc build https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/828368
16:33:24 bauzas gmann: thanks
16:33:36 dansmith gmann: ack, I've been wondering when that was going to go
16:33:41 bauzas anyone wanting to discuss now about priorities ?
16:33:47 dansmith bauzas: want a note on the quotas stuff?
16:33:54 gmann dansmith: lot of test to fix so taking time but I am working on remaining policies
16:33:58 bauzas dansmith: I started looking at your comment
16:34:07 bauzas on the next patch I wanted to review
16:34:22 dansmith bauzas: well,
16:34:28 bauzas dansmith: those are reasonable concerns but I started reviewing this patch too
16:34:41 dansmith melwitt and I discussed a few refactoring changes
16:34:50 dansmith after my first review, and we're still working on hammering those out
16:35:20 bauzas dansmith: given the series, do you feel she needs to rebase his change or can she work on a follow-up patch ?
16:35:30 bauzas (well, can ping melwitt actually for the answer)
16:35:33 dansmith I'm working on the rebase now,
16:35:45 dansmith but yeah, we're actually going to drop the latest PS, back to the previous and iterate from there
16:35:52 dansmith I'm almost done with that actually,
16:36:03 dansmith but want to sync with her when she's around this morning before I push that major change up :)
16:36:14 bauzas dansmith: ok, then I'll look at other bps tonight and I'll look back at the unified limits one tomorrow
16:36:28 bauzas thanks for the notice
16:36:56 dansmith aye
16:37:14 bauzas fwiw, I thought about a simple thing for giving ourselves visibility during the last 3-week sprint
16:37:46 bauzas if cores don't disagree, I'd recommend cores to mark their IRC nicks on the BPs they'd like to review this week
16:37:52 bauzas no obligation
16:38:07 bauzas just a matter of giving a bit of visibility for the people who want
16:38:37 bauzas feel it like it's runways or whatever name it is
16:39:12 bauzas it's just about adding a bullet point below each blueprint on the blueprint etherpad for people willing to mark their names
16:39:30 bauzas another option could be the Review-Priority flag :)

Earlier   Later