| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-09-01 | |||
| 16:40:01 | artom | bauzas, wait, so ephemral disk, PCI, and manial will all make it? | |
| 16:40:12 | artom | *Manilla | |
| 16:40:20 | gibi | bauzas: I don't think we can detect all the design issues at spec time. But still I think we should be better than doing it at the day of FF | |
| 16:40:21 | sean-k-mooney | not sure about manilla | |
| 16:40:22 | bauzas | jhartkopf: I just hope you can understand that our API resources are important to us and we really care about the UX | |
| 16:40:39 | sean-k-mooney | ephmeral also likely not | |
| 16:40:51 | bauzas | artom: no, I was mentioning a design issue being raised | |
| 16:40:53 | artom | Ah | |
| 16:41:38 | bauzas | ephemerals and PCI are on their way but they're big and need a lot of back and forths | |
| 16:41:48 | gibi | the only easy answer for me know is that I should have asked dansmith earlier to review the series | |
| 16:41:53 | bauzas | but they hadn't required a redesign | |
| 16:42:11 | bauzas | gibi: well, if you read the spec, I had concerns about the restart | |
| 16:42:37 | dansmith | gibi: this is why I'm against yearly releases.. because this stuff, very unfortunately, only comes to a head when there's a deadline... | |
| 16:42:40 | gibi | so the I should have asked you to review the series too | |
| 16:42:41 | bauzas | we just didn't went further thinking about configdrive problems | |
| 16:42:59 | gibi | dansmith: I totally agree about having more meaningful deadline would help | |
| 16:43:07 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: because thats the forcing function that get a lot of use to review a tthe same time | |
| 16:43:14 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: in the absence of an inperson PTG | |
| 16:43:19 | dansmith | and I only reviewed it because it was in front of something else that I know we needed to land, which was up against the deadline | |
| 16:43:27 | bauzas | and I was on PTO for 3.5 weeks | |
| 16:43:30 | bauzas | so blame me too | |
| 16:43:33 | dansmith | WE ALL SUCK | |
| 16:43:36 | dansmith | there ^ :P | |
| 16:43:40 | sean-k-mooney | :) | |
| 16:43:59 | gibi | I don't want to blame, I want to find something I or we can do different next time | |
| 16:44:27 | jhartkopf | this ^ | |
| 16:44:30 | bauzas | everyone has different review sensitiveness | |
| 16:44:54 | bauzas | for me, I mostly care about upgrades and controler/compute relationship | |
| 16:45:01 | bauzas | but I miss other things | |
| 16:45:19 | bauzas | the point is, we're humans | |
| 16:45:37 | bauzas | artom: you're Quebecian | |
| 16:45:43 | bauzas | there is a default fail | |
| 16:46:02 | gibi | I don't want to believe that this is OK as is. :) | |
| 16:46:06 | artom | You want a Maurice Richard riot v2.0? Because that's how you get a Maurice Richard riot v2.0. | |
| 16:46:08 | gibi | I want to improve! | |
| 16:46:48 | sean-k-mooney | well i guss where this should have been hashed out comes back to the spec | |
| 16:46:56 | bauzas | yup ^ | |
| 16:47:15 | sean-k-mooney | and the first red flag should have been when the quetion of how to regenerate teh config drive came up | |
| 16:47:21 | sean-k-mooney | after the spec was merged | |
| 16:48:26 | gibi | dansmith: we would need a bit more than deadlines we would need to inject deadlines that forces a patch series to be ignored for 2 months or so | |
| 16:48:45 | dansmith | to not be? | |
| 16:49:08 | sean-k-mooney | we did actully have such a deadline in the past | |
| 16:49:19 | gibi | dansmith: to be. If the deadline only means I can try the same deadline two weeks from now then that does not force me to push for this particular deadline | |
| 16:49:20 | dansmith | I think part of the problem is that jhartkopf has to wait 6mon (minimum) before he has a consumable release with this in it | |
| 16:49:24 | sean-k-mooney | it was called the non-priorty feature propsal deadline | |
| 16:49:30 | dansmith | gibi: yeah that's true | |
| 16:49:39 | sean-k-mooney | which requried any feature not marked as a priorty to be propsed by m2 | |
| 16:49:47 | dansmith | gibi: two weeks is probably too infrequent to be pressure-inducing | |
| 16:50:01 | gibi | dansmith: true, I defaulted to scrum | |
| 16:50:04 | dansmith | we should probably retro this later, I have other m3 stuff I need to do | |
| 16:50:56 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: that fulfills the big-enough-pain-to-miss requirement. :) | |
| 16:51:44 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I guess it introduced another issue, selecting priorities. But that was maybe less of a problem | |
| 16:52:07 | gibi | and we did see that having priorities would help with the rebuild bfv series | |
| 16:52:16 | gibi | * would have helped | |
| 16:52:50 | gibi | so I'm not against discussing the reintroduction of non-priority feature freeze as one possible option | |
| 16:52:51 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:53:03 | bauzas | noted. | |
| 16:53:05 | sean-k-mooney | so way back we used to requrie non priorty feature to merge by m2 | |
| 16:53:18 | sean-k-mooney | we then relaxed it for the to be proposed by m2 | |
| 16:53:18 | JayF | As a mostly-outside observer, this sounds mostly like the standard "10 gallons of work has to fit in a 5 gallon bucket" problem :) | |
| 16:53:21 | sean-k-mooney | and then removed it | |
| 16:53:25 | bauzas | remember, we discussed this at the PTG when I pointed out I was off for three weeks | |
| 16:54:06 | gibi | I have to drop, but thanks for the above discussion | |
| 16:54:10 | bauzas | but anyway, I personnally feel another deadline wouldn't have changed the situation | |
| 16:54:28 | gibi | lets continue this on the PTG as part of a retro | |
| 16:54:36 | bauzas | yet again, this was a design concern, being missed at the design state | |
| 16:54:36 | sean-k-mooney | sure | |
| 16:54:40 | bauzas | stage* | |
| 16:54:43 | dansmith | to be clear, my point about deadlines was that moving to yearly releases would make this a lot worse, not necessarily that more deadlines than we have would *solve* it | |
| 16:54:53 | bauzas | dansmith: oh yeah | |
| 16:54:58 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: yep it would | |
| 17:13:30 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: thanks for the link | |
| 17:38:35 | opendevreview | Jay Faulkner proposed openstack/nova stable/xena: nova-live-migration tests not needed for Ironic https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855469 | |
| 18:14:03 | opendevreview | Rico Lin proposed openstack/nova master: Add traits for viommu model https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/844507 | |
| 18:14:52 | ricolin | sean-k-mooney: bauzas sorry, a pep8 error, can you approve it again, thanks | |
| 18:15:58 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Heal missing simple PCI allocation in the resource tracker https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851359 | |
| 18:16:06 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Heal PCI allocation during resize https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/852396 | |
| 18:16:13 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Heal allocation for same host resize https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/854822 | |
| 18:21:46 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Handle PCI dev reconf with allocations https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/852397 | |
| 18:21:54 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Allow enabling PCI tracking in Placement https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/850468 | |
| 18:25:40 | dansmith | ricolin: I got you | |
| 18:28:49 | ricolin | thanks dansmith | |
| 18:52:43 | bauzas | ricolin: dansmith: done too | |
| 19:15:04 | bauzas | fwiw, I'm setting Implemented against all blueprints that have their API changes merged but waiting for client patches | |
| 19:15:24 | bauzas | nova in launchpad != novaclient and osc | |
| 19:29:10 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/ussuri: Ignore plug_vifs on the ironic driver https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821351 | |
| 19:32:00 | bauzas | fwiw, procedural -2 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816157/16 | |
| 19:35:08 | JayF | Intersesting failure case in stable/yoga CI, I think it's probably something that's actually-broken, but not by my patch: https://storage.bhs.cloud.ovh.net/v1/AUTH_dcaab5e32b234d56b626f72581e3644c/zuul_opendev_logs_8b1/854257/2/gate/openstack-tox-py39/8b1323f/testr_results.html | |
| 19:35:49 | JayF | Given that all tests that were comparing the contents there are all failing in a similar way, with no human-readable changes | |
| 19:36:02 | sean-k-mooney | JayF i have hit that too | |
| 19:36:07 | sean-k-mooney | on complete unrelated path | |
| 19:36:19 | sean-k-mooney | i cant repodcue it locally for what its worth | |
| 19:36:25 | JayF | are you suggseting I just retry then? | |
| 19:36:44 | sean-k-mooney | let me check if my other one pass after a retry | |
| 19:36:54 | JayF | I can do that, I usually don't pull that lever if it looks nonrandom like this one does, but I don't know enough about nova failure cases to be certain | |
| 19:38:05 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855025 failed agian | |
| 19:38:13 | sean-k-mooney | JayF: same issue | |
| 19:38:19 | sean-k-mooney | and its only on py39 | |
| 19:38:25 | sean-k-mooney | the py36 test passes | |
| 19:38:41 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: others, you may be interested in the antelope timeframe https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/850753/5/doc/source/antelope/schedule.rst | |