| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-01-17 | |||
| 16:26:23 | gibi | sure | |
| 16:26:48 | bauzas | I mean, I have my power mgmt series to work on, but if we can't land things, nothing will merge either way. | |
| 16:27:03 | sean-k-mooney | the gate is not totally blocked | |
| 16:27:12 | sean-k-mooney | but its flaky enough that its hard | |
| 16:27:15 | bauzas | yeah, but rechecking is not a great option | |
| 16:27:16 | gibi | yepp | |
| 16:27:22 | sean-k-mooney | ya its not | |
| 16:27:29 | bauzas | agreed, I'm not sending the signal our gate is busted | |
| 16:27:35 | bauzas | but we know this is hard | |
| 16:27:43 | sean-k-mooney | one thing i have noticed is the py3.10 functional job seams more stable then py38 | |
| 16:27:47 | bauzas | and let me go to the next topic and you'll understand why | |
| 16:28:01 | sean-k-mooney | for the db issues | |
| 16:28:09 | sean-k-mooney | but that could be just the ones i happend to look at | |
| 16:28:14 | bauzas | ok | |
| 16:28:22 | clarkb | sean-k-mooney: 3.10 introduced a much more deterministic thread scheduler. Also its quite a bit quicker in some projects which helps generally | |
| 16:28:32 | bauzas | ah, gdk | |
| 16:28:54 | bauzas | we probably have tests not correctly cleaning up data | |
| 16:28:58 | bauzas | so we need to bisect them | |
| 16:29:01 | sean-k-mooney | ya so im wondifing if we are blocked we might want to make the 3.8 one non voting while we try to fix this | |
| 16:29:14 | sean-k-mooney | but there are other issues so i dont think that will help much | |
| 16:29:19 | sean-k-mooney | just somethign to keep in mind | |
| 16:29:20 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: before going that road, lemme try to bisect the faulty tests | |
| 16:29:25 | dansmith | I've seen it both waysm | |
| 16:29:26 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:29:32 | dansmith | 3.10 passing with 3.8 failing and the other way | |
| 16:29:39 | dansmith | so I don't think disabling one gets us much | |
| 16:29:41 | sean-k-mooney | ok then its jsut flaky | |
| 16:29:50 | bauzas | lovely | |
| 16:29:53 | bauzas | moving on | |
| 16:29:59 | bauzas | we have some agenda today | |
| 16:30:09 | bauzas | #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly Nova&Placement periodic jobs status | |
| 16:30:14 | bauzas | that's fun | |
| 16:30:34 | bauzas | despite https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/866049 was merged, we still have the centos9-fips job timeouting | |
| 16:30:40 | bauzas | so I looked at the job def | |
| 16:30:57 | bauzas | and looks to me it no longer depends on the job I added extra timeout :) | |
| 16:31:22 | bauzas | so basically the patch that took 2 months to get landed is basically useless for our pipeline | |
| 16:31:26 | bauzas | funny, as I said | |
| 16:31:41 | gmann | I think we had progress on running fips testing on ubuntu but need to check if we have job ready. that can replace c9-fips jobs | |
| 16:31:48 | bauzas | so I'll just add the extra timeout on our local job definition | |
| 16:32:00 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Detect host renames and abort startup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/863920 | |
| 16:32:10 | bauzas | gmann: that's good to hear | |
| 16:32:29 | gmann | not merged yet #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/867112 | |
| 16:32:33 | bauzas | gmann: we could put fips in check pipeline then | |
| 16:32:47 | gmann | yeah that is plan once we have ubuntu based job | |
| 16:32:55 | bauzas | gmann: as a reminder, given centos9s, fips is on periodic pipeline | |
| 16:33:04 | gmann | yeah | |
| 16:33:08 | bauzas | anyway, this time it should be quickier | |
| 16:33:17 | bauzas | I'll just update our .zuul.yaml | |
| 16:33:36 | bauzas | oh wait | |
| 16:34:10 | bauzas | https://zuul.openstack.org/job/tempest-integrated-compute-centos-9-stream is actually defined in tempest | |
| 16:34:30 | bauzas | so I don't get why we don't benefit from the extra timeout | |
| 16:34:39 | gmann | yeah, we will prepare the tempest job and then add in project side gate | |
| 16:34:44 | sean-k-mooney | the job definition is yes | |
| 16:35:14 | bauzas | anyway, I don't want us to spill too much time about it | |
| 16:35:18 | gmann | not sure on timeout. c9s has been flasky for fips always | |
| 16:35:20 | bauzas | let's move on | |
| 16:35:26 | gmann | yes | |
| 16:35:30 | bauzas | #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag. | |
| 16:35:35 | bauzas | #info STOP DOING BLIND RECHECKS aka. 'recheck' https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/testing.html#how-to-handle-test-failures | |
| 16:35:39 | bauzas | #topic Release Planning | |
| 16:35:44 | bauzas | #link https://releases.openstack.org/antelope/schedule.html | |
| 16:35:49 | bauzas | #info Antelope-3 is in 4 weeks | |
| 16:35:51 | bauzas | tick tack | |
| 16:35:57 | bauzas | #info 17 Accepted blueprints for 2023.1 Antelope | |
| 16:36:04 | bauzas | which is the same amount than yoga | |
| 16:36:16 | bauzas | this is a large number given our team | |
| 16:36:42 | bauzas | given this, I'll create an etherpad for tracking each of them | |
| 16:36:44 | sean-k-mooney | there are 3 i expect to complete this week possibely more | |
| 16:36:51 | sean-k-mooney | dependign on review bandwith | |
| 16:36:56 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: me too, but that still requires us some effort | |
| 16:37:24 | sean-k-mooney | i am a little worried for soem of them but hopeful we will land the majoriy of them | |
| 16:37:32 | bauzas | I mean, I know me, I'll need to put my review energy on the right way and an etherpad will help me to direct my energy productively | |
| 16:37:45 | sean-k-mooney | i dobth it will be too much over half | |
| 16:37:48 | bauzas | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/antelope | |
| 16:38:02 | bauzas | you can find the list of those blueprints there ^ | |
| 16:38:28 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:38:34 | 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) | |
| 16:38:40 | bauzas | #info As a reminder, cores eager to review changes can +1 to indicate their interest, +2 for committing to the review | |
| 16:39:18 | bauzas | nothing to mention here | |
| 16:39:23 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:39:27 | bauzas | elodilles: floor is yours | |
| 16:39:38 | elodilles | #info stable branches don't seem to be blocked, but patches mostly need rechecks | |
| 16:39:47 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:39:54 | elodilles | and last but not least: Xena will transition to Extended Maintenance after the release of 2023.1 Antelope | |
| 16:40:00 | elodilles | so to prepare for that: | |
| 16:40:08 | elodilles | #info release patches were generated for *stable/xena* : https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:xena-stable+reviewer:sbauza%2540redhat.com | |
| 16:40:13 | sean-k-mooney | the release team proposed doign a release of several repos for xena. do we want ot wait for the tox pin to be merged | |
| 16:40:34 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: which one do you mean? | |
| 16:40:45 | sean-k-mooney | the ones you were linking | |
| 16:40:46 | elodilles | (and that was all from me about stable branches) | |
| 16:40:59 | gmann | tox pin is merged for stable branches. it is done at central place in openstck-zuul-jobs repo | |
| 16:41:02 | bauzas | that's fun, stable branches are more stable than master :) | |
| 16:41:03 | sean-k-mooney | so we dont have the pin to tox<4 on xena yet | |
| 16:41:13 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: oh ok | |
| 16:41:22 | sean-k-mooney | i tought we needed to do it in the tox.ini too | |
| 16:41:28 | sean-k-mooney | so that it worked if you run tox loclaly | |
| 16:41:31 | gmann | let me check if osc-placement and python client is merged or not | |
| 16:41:40 | elodilles | no, the workaround was merged last week, as gmann says | |
| 16:41:51 | sean-k-mooney | will that work outside ci | |
| 16:42:17 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure hwo you can fix it centrally unless we did it in upper-constraits? | |