| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-07-19 | |||
| 16:16:22 | bauzas | 2.91 | |
| 16:17:48 | bauzas | there it is | |
| 16:18:05 | bauzas | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-zed-microversions-plan Etherpad for a microversion use query | |
| 16:18:24 | bauzas | fwiw, I left 2.91 for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845897 | |
| 16:18:40 | bauzas | and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/849133 is now ready for 2.92 | |
| 16:19:01 | bauzas | the latter will require a very small merge conflict resolution due to the api docs | |
| 16:19:24 | bauzas | but as you see, nothing was preventing me to use the 2.92 microversion even if 2.91 wasn't merged | |
| 16:19:46 | bauzas | that's why I propose our different change owners to ask for a microversion | |
| 16:20:34 | gibi | you will have a bit more than a single conflict on the api doc but yes hopefully the conflict will be small | |
| 16:20:36 | bauzas | I'll send an email tomorrow explaining about this | |
| 16:20:42 | bauzas | gibi: I tested it | |
| 16:20:50 | bauzas | gibi: 4 files were conflicting | |
| 16:20:53 | gibi | I expect a conflict on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/849133/5/doc/api_samples/versions/v21-version-get-resp.json | |
| 16:21:04 | bauzas | yup, this one and the root v2 | |
| 16:21:15 | bauzas | plus the rest api microversions list doc | |
| 16:21:21 | bauzas | and I can't remember the last one | |
| 16:21:23 | gibi | and on the api_version_request.py | |
| 16:21:25 | bauzas | but easy conflicts | |
| 16:21:50 | bauzas | could be harder to resolve if two changes are touching the same API resource | |
| 16:22:01 | Uggla | fyi I have just reserved 2.93 for virtiofs | |
| 16:22:01 | bauzas | but let's not overcomplicate this | |
| 16:22:28 | bauzas | Uggla: then prepare your API change to use the 2.93 microversion, this should work like mine | |
| 16:22:31 | gibi | bauzas: sure | |
| 16:23:44 | bauzas | tbc, we reserve the right to flip the microversions | |
| 16:23:50 | Uggla | need to review because I bet on 2.92. | |
| 16:23:53 | bauzas | depending on the state of the review | |
| 16:24:05 | bauzas | we had runways before | |
| 16:24:17 | bauzas | take it as a unformal runway for asking reviews | |
| 16:24:56 | bauzas | either way, I'll send an email explaining the rules | |
| 16:25:15 | bauzas | I don't want an overcomplicated process | |
| 16:25:29 | bauzas | this is just a way to prevent people doing frequent rebases | |
| 16:26:07 | bauzas | but the smaller microversion you ask, the higher you need to be reviewed hence be present | |
| 16:26:35 | bauzas | I just don't want us to wait for new revisions that could stale other changes | |
| 16:27:03 | bauzas | so I'll just say that we're free to drop some change from the microversion number | |
| 16:27:32 | bauzas | hope you folks don't disagree with this stupid plan | |
| 16:28:18 | gibi | with the amount of folks pushing for a microversion right now I don't see trouble | |
| 16:28:30 | Uggla | sounds good | |
| 16:28:32 | bauzas | well, I see 5 different patches | |
| 16:28:34 | bauzas | at leasty | |
| 16:29:00 | bauzas | anyway, moving on | |
| 16:29:02 | gibi | personally I would not bet on current+3 or higher to be ordered | |
| 16:29:18 | bauzas | #action bauzas to clarify the game rules of the etherpad in a later email tomorrow | |
| 16:29:19 | gibi | but having a c+1 and c+2 ordered make sens | |
| 16:29:21 | gibi | e | |
| 16:29:29 | bauzas | gibi: that's a reasonable point | |
| 16:29:36 | bauzas | I could remove 2.95 and newer | |
| 16:29:55 | bauzas | moving on | |
| 16:29:57 | gibi | and also if you are not ready for review then please don't allocate a microversion :) | |
| 16:29:57 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:30:07 | bauzas | gibi: that's the game rule | |
| 16:30:14 | gibi | coolio | |
| 16:30:28 | bauzas | and if you are on vacations for 4 weeks, don't ask for the next microversion | |
| 16:30:49 | bauzas | or ask the next one, provided your patch can be reviewed before you leave | |
| 16:30:51 | bauzas | :) | |
| 16:30:56 | gibi | :) | |
| 16:31:08 | bahnwaerter | :) | |
| 16:31:33 | bauzas | only 3.5 | |
| 16:31:51 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:32:05 | bauzas | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+(project:openstack/nova+OR+project:openstack/placement+OR+project:openstack/os-traits+OR+project:openstack/os-resource-classes+OR+project:openstack/os-vif+OR+project:openstack/python-novaclient+OR+project:openstack/osc-placement)+label:Review-Priority%252B1 | |
| 16:32:16 | bauzas | huzzah | |
| 16:32:21 | bauzas | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/837595 is merged | |
| 16:32:51 | bauzas | #link https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/process.html#what-the-review-priority-label-in-gerrit-are-use-for explains now the new gerrit flag and how to use it | |
| 16:33:21 | gibi | would be interesting to see how many +1 will appeare on this list from now | |
| 16:33:53 | dansmith | I friggin hate the RP label btw | |
| 16:33:56 | bauzas | at least two from sean-k-mooney :) | |
| 16:34:11 | gibi | bauzas: btw you need to update your query to show both +1 and +2 | |
| 16:34:15 | dansmith | I keep RP+2ing patches and people ask a week later why I didn't CR+2 them :/ | |
| 16:34:30 | bauzas | dansmith: point them doc | |
| 16:34:31 | sean-k-mooney | they were proably form before the update | |
| 16:34:43 | bauzas | gibi: yeah I need to modify it | |
| 16:34:52 | dansmith | bauzas: no, I mean *I* do the wrong thing because I go looking for the +2 button to click and choose the wrong one | |
| 16:35:04 | sean-k-mooney | yes they were bot form before the cahnge merged | |
| 16:35:09 | dansmith | I wish RP could be a different scale like -A +B +C | |
| 16:35:11 | sean-k-mooney | but plese do look at them | |
| 16:35:21 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: it can be | |
| 16:35:25 | gibi | dansmith: valid point, can we change it from +2 to +B? | |
| 16:35:34 | bauzas | dansmith: ah I get your point | |
| 16:35:35 | dansmith | if we can choose anything, | |
| 16:35:38 | bauzas | it's confusing indeed | |
| 16:35:42 | sean-k-mooney | i am pretty sure it does not have to be a number | |
| 16:35:47 | dansmith | could we make it -NotYet, +Prio, +HighPrio ? | |
| 16:35:49 | bauzas | I don't know, we need to look at gerrit acls | |
| 16:36:06 | sean-k-mooney | i can check but this si just a cutom lable | |
| 16:36:06 | dansmith | or -Low, +Med, +High | |
| 16:36:24 | bauzas | dansmith: man, we got this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/837595 open for a while, you know your very good comment would have been more than appreciated then ? :D | |
| 16:36:24 | dansmith | don't do it just for me, but just relating my frustration with it on the glance side | |
| 16:36:46 | bauzas | anyway, it took us 6 months to get it | |
| 16:36:50 | dansmith | bauzas: sorry, but it has taken actual experience to realize it's annoying | |
| 16:37:02 | bauzas | I'm pretty sure we can take one month more to find if we can change the acls and to get it merged :p | |
| 16:37:08 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well thats just ebcause we didnt agree on what it shoudl be | |
| 16:37:13 | sean-k-mooney | if we can set a custom value | |
| 16:37:15 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: not exactly | |
| 16:37:21 | sean-k-mooney | and we want too we can get it updated quickly | |
| 16:37:30 | dansmith | I will help push for reviews on a change if you want to do it | |
| 16:37:33 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: it took us nearly a cycle to agree and then nearly a midcycle to get it merged | |
| 16:37:39 | dansmith | again, not trying to mess anything up, just conveying my experience | |
| 16:37:47 | bauzas | dansmith: your comment is legit | |
| 16:37:57 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: thats just because i had asked them to wait until i went back to them | |
| 16:37:58 | bauzas | and I don't want contributors to mess this up | |
| 16:38:18 | gibi | I would go for +P (contributor review promise) +CP (core review promise) | |