| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-01-10 | |||
| 16:33:02 | sean-k-mooney | perhaps in the tool but the name has been released | |
| 16:33:14 | bauzas | yup, another ship sailed | |
| 16:33:18 | sean-k-mooney | in anycase i can create a 2023.2 folder in the spec repo | |
| 16:33:20 | gmann | ohk :) honestly saying I have not given mush attention to release naming :) | |
| 16:33:28 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: +1 | |
| 16:33:33 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: wait for the spec freeze | |
| 16:33:41 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/wallaby: Adapt websocketproxy tests for SimpleHTTPServer fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/866194 | |
| 16:33:41 | sean-k-mooney | but bauzas if you want to do that after spec freeze we can wait till after thrsday | |
| 16:33:42 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: or it would perhaps confuse people | |
| 16:33:53 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: well, I'm not opposed to delegate | |
| 16:34:07 | sean-k-mooney | cool well i ahve done it in the past but lest do it next week | |
| 16:34:44 | bauzas | anyway, I guess we vote for a virtual PTG on end of March ? (that was the original question) | |
| 16:35:20 | bauzas | and we don't say "meh, no, just let's do a physical one at right the middle of the release, and go f*** our deadlines !" | |
| 16:35:22 | bauzas | :D | |
| 16:36:16 | bauzas | I hear crickets, so I decide so | |
| 16:36:19 | elodilles | well, that is the usual PTG time, so i think it is not something to vote for :) | |
| 16:36:23 | gmann | not sure physical one can be utilized same as our normal PTG but can plan for some operaotr oriented discussions | |
| 16:36:41 | bauzas | #info we'll have a virtual Nova PTG on March 27-31 | |
| 16:36:45 | gmann | virtual one in March will be the normal vPTG we have for cycle | |
| 16:36:48 | bauzas | I'll register our name :) | |
| 16:37:08 | bauzas | gmann: honestly, I don't expect much more from what we currently have at the Forum | |
| 16:37:13 | bauzas | gmann: but let's be creative | |
| 16:37:17 | gmann | bauzas: yeah. | |
| 16:37:42 | bauzas | if we really need to s/Forum/PTG to have more people coming, I'm not opposed to a rebranding | |
| 16:37:53 | elodilles | some teams do mid-cycle PTG-s, so the in-person one can be considered such, i guess | |
| 16:37:56 | gmann | we asked same PTG fomat questions on vancouver PTG but that is not answer yet | |
| 16:38:23 | bauzas | elodilles: given the Summit will be around Spec Freeze, that's gonna be fun | |
| 16:38:27 | gmann | I think in openstack-discuss ML but anyways let's see | |
| 16:38:50 | bauzas | elodilles: but we could do 'review sprints' or 'implementation sessions' | |
| 16:39:03 | bauzas | if that helps people wanting to come :) | |
| 16:39:10 | gmann | +1. good idea | |
| 16:39:16 | bauzas | I guess we're done on that topic | |
| 16:39:31 | bauzas | moving on | |
| 16:39:36 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:39:44 | 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+OR+label:Review-Priority%252B2) | |
| 16:39:50 | bauzas | #info As a reminder, cores eager to review changes can +1 to indicate their interest, +2 for committing to the review | |
| 16:40:13 | bauzas | I'll slowly but progressively use this label for knowing what to review | |
| 16:40:17 | bauzas | so you know about it | |
| 16:40:25 | bauzas | next topic (we only have 20 mins) | |
| 16:40:29 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:40:34 | bauzas | elodilles: happy to see you back | |
| 16:40:41 | elodilles | :) | |
| 16:40:49 | elodilles | we mostly discussed, but | |
| 16:41:10 | elodilles | #info stable branches seem to be unblocked / OK -- except placement, osc-placement, ... | |
| 16:41:33 | elodilles | thanks gmann for fixing the tox4 issues on stable branches! | |
| 16:41:45 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:41:54 | elodilles | and maybe one more thing: | |
| 16:41:55 | gmann | for pin not fix :) | |
| 16:42:13 | elodilles | gmann: yepp, a good workaround for now ;) | |
| 16:42:53 | elodilles | so maybe we should do nova stable releases as there are already some merged content on zed, yoga and xena | |
| 16:43:29 | elodilles | and a small side track: i would want some stable core opinions about my comment here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/867912 | |
| 16:43:46 | elodilles | as the zed release might depend on that | |
| 16:43:53 | bauzas | elodilles: sure, want me to create the releases ? | |
| 16:44:01 | bauzas | stable releases, I mean | |
| 16:44:04 | elodilles | but that can be done after the meeting | |
| 16:44:08 | bauzas | we're in a good timing | |
| 16:44:45 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles this is your main question right https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/867912/5/nova/conf/workarounds.py | |
| 16:44:49 | elodilles | bauzas: yes, if you have time :) otherwise i can also propose them | |
| 16:44:57 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: yes | |
| 16:45:06 | sean-k-mooney | so i considerd that when reviewing | |
| 16:45:25 | sean-k-mooney | i tought the value of the fix in behaivor outwaied the possibel performance impact | |
| 16:45:44 | sean-k-mooney | but you are correct that fliping the default would maintain the old behaivor | |
| 16:46:01 | sean-k-mooney | fliping the default woudl also result in a workaorunds option being enabeld by default | |
| 16:46:07 | sean-k-mooney | which we generally avoid | |
| 16:46:20 | sean-k-mooney | so not changing the default felt more consitent to me | |
| 16:46:41 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure what other think ^ | |
| 16:46:47 | bauzas | hmmm | |
| 16:46:52 | bauzas | loading the context | |
| 16:47:20 | sean-k-mooney | the context is mostly captured in teh help text :) | |
| 16:47:21 | bauzas | so it was a opt-out config | |
| 16:47:36 | bauzas | and when backporting it suddently became opt-in | |
| 16:47:44 | bauzas | right? | |
| 16:47:49 | sean-k-mooney | no we did not change it when back porting | |
| 16:47:55 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: question is should we | |
| 16:48:14 | sean-k-mooney | so on master we default to the new more desireable beahvior | |
| 16:48:15 | elodilles | no. to put it simple: we change the default behavior on stable branches | |
| 16:48:30 | sean-k-mooney | and elodilles is asking shoudl we keep the old beahivor in the backports | |
| 16:48:36 | bauzas | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/864773/3/nova/conf/workarounds.py default on master is False | |
| 16:48:40 | bauzas | so that's opt-in | |
| 16:49:00 | bauzas | which is the same for the backports | |
| 16:49:02 | elodilles | i mean, given an installed environment, they upgrade, and the behaviour is changed with the upgraded nova | |
| 16:49:14 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: correct | |
| 16:49:18 | bauzas | elodilles: I don't see a problem here with keeping it opt-in | |
| 16:49:41 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well it will required all operator to update there config to adress the bug | |
| 16:49:57 | elodilles | bauzas: it is opt-out :) you have to change the configuration to have the existing behaviour | |
| 16:50:10 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney which is the current behaviour on master, right? | |
| 16:50:32 | sean-k-mooney | on master we now set the reseved value on instnace boot | |
| 16:50:51 | sean-k-mooney | before this patch we set reserved wehn deleteing | |
| 16:51:12 | bauzas | because the option defaults to False, right? | |
| 16:51:28 | bauzas | if you set to True, you keep the original behaviou | |
| 16:51:29 | sean-k-mooney | the workaroudn option is a skip to opt out yes and it default to false | |
| 16:51:31 | bauzas | behaviour | |
| 16:51:35 | sean-k-mooney | correct | |
| 16:51:43 | bauzas | ok | |
| 16:51:48 | bauzas | so, say we backport this | |
| 16:51:54 | bauzas | as it is | |
| 16:52:22 | bauzas | to understand, that means we'll change the behaviour by upgrading to the latest (obviously .y) release | |
| 16:52:26 | sean-k-mooney | as is then the stable branchs get the new behaivor and you need to modify the config to restore the old behaiovr | |
| 16:52:44 | sean-k-mooney | but this is an internal implemation detail that is not part of any public contract | |
| 16:52:47 | bauzas | I think we have semver for communicating the behavioural change | |