| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-03-19 | |||
| 16:07:14 | bauzas | okay, anyone else wanting to take the baton ? if not, I'll take it again... :) | |
| 16:08:13 | bauzas | okay | |
| 16:08:20 | elodilles | i'd rather wait until we release 2024.1 Caracal o:) | |
| 16:08:28 | bauzas | #info bug baton is bauzas | |
| 16:08:50 | bauzas | moving on | |
| 16:08:55 | bauzas | #topic Gate status | |
| 16:08:59 | bauzas | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure Nova gate bugs | |
| 16:09:03 | bauzas | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-ci-failures-minimal | |
| 16:09:07 | bauzas | #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly Nova&Placement periodic jobs status | |
| 16:09:13 | bauzas | #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag. | |
| 16:09:24 | bauzas | anything to discuss about the gate ? | |
| 16:09:27 | bauzas | oh, one point | |
| 16:09:48 | bauzas | I just saw slaweq's email on bare rechecks | |
| 16:10:01 | Uggla | o/ | |
| 16:10:22 | bauzas | as a reminder, please avoid to say only "recheck" when you have a gate failure | |
| 16:10:38 | dansmith | or "recheck unrelated" | |
| 16:10:45 | bauzas | and please add a good comment explaining what's the root problem | |
| 16:10:47 | dansmith | it can be unrelated, but at least say why | |
| 16:10:52 | bauzas | and try to find a second to understand the reason | |
| 16:11:17 | bauzas | yeah, or at least please tell in the comment which job fails and with which exception | |
| 16:11:59 | bauzas | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/7L6DSFN6GB65FBVHQATTLSQ7HWGBZJHM/ | |
| 16:12:13 | sean-k-mooney | honestly i dont think calling this out here helps | |
| 16:12:14 | bauzas | #info please avoid bare rechecks | |
| 16:12:34 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: really? the tc has asked PTLs and other project leaders to help get this word out | |
| 16:12:37 | sean-k-mooney | the people that are here already know we should avoid it | |
| 16:13:06 | bauzas | not only folks discussing here look at our meetings :) | |
| 16:13:08 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: sure but doing this in the team metting i dont think helps | |
| 16:13:25 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: it's exactly what we've asked for, AFAIK | |
| 16:13:28 | sean-k-mooney | ok but we disucssed about stoping to do this here in the past | |
| 16:13:29 | bauzas | I know some folks look at our minutes | |
| 16:13:37 | dansmith | and I think it does help because as bauzas says, people might not be here but read the minutes | |
| 16:13:59 | sean-k-mooney | ok but we stopped doing it in meeting becasue we didnt think it was working | |
| 16:14:12 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: 15% on nova are still bare, and a higher proportion are "recheck unrelated" so there's still work to do | |
| 16:14:13 | sean-k-mooney | we can go back to doing it | |
| 16:14:24 | bauzas | 16% is a bad value IMHO | |
| 16:14:38 | dansmith | bauzas: better than some projects for sure, but still work to do yeah | |
| 16:14:42 | bauzas | so I'll then discuss this every meeting | |
| 16:15:04 | sean-k-mooney | do we have the list of those because i dont think just callign it out here is going to have an impact | |
| 16:15:26 | bauzas | #action bauzas to tell about the bare rechecks every week in our meeting | |
| 16:15:43 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: please look at the link above | |
| 16:15:50 | sean-k-mooney | i have the email open | |
| 16:16:25 | bauzas | we had 16 bare rechecks against 105 rechecks, so we have 15% | |
| 16:16:46 | sean-k-mooney | i might see if i can pull out the bare rehceck and see what there were | |
| 16:16:49 | bauzas | fwiw, I can find which changes have bare rechecks | |
| 16:16:57 | bauzas | this is quite simple | |
| 16:17:20 | bauzas | but I don't want to ping folks saying "dude, don't do it" | |
| 16:17:30 | sean-k-mooney | there are a few poepl that tend to only review +1 | |
| 16:17:41 | sean-k-mooney | and i wonder if its the same subset that are blind rechecking | |
| 16:17:51 | sean-k-mooney | i did ask one person to stopp rechecking | |
| 16:18:01 | sean-k-mooney | becuase there was an actual issue | |
| 16:19:51 | sean-k-mooney | anyway lets move on we can chat about this after the meeting | |
| 16:20:20 | bauzas | okay | |
| 16:20:43 | bauzas | #topic Release Planning | |
| 16:20:47 | bauzas | #link https://releases.openstack.org/caracal/schedule.html#nova | |
| 16:20:50 | bauzas | #info RC1 delivered this morning | |
| 16:20:52 | bauzas | \œ/ | |
| 16:21:06 | bauzas | #info master branch is now on Dalmatian | |
| 16:21:16 | elodilles | \o/ | |
| 16:21:47 | bauzas | as a reminder, we won't accept backports for the caracal branch until GA unless they are regression fixes | |
| 16:22:20 | bauzas | ditto with other stable backports given you need to have it in Caracal too | |
| 16:22:39 | bauzas | (unless of course the backports are from a caracal merged change) | |
| 16:22:47 | elodilles | +1 | |
| 16:23:08 | bauzas | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-caracal-rc-potential | |
| 16:23:26 | bauzas | I'll continue to provide this etherpad for the possible new Caracal RC tags | |
| 16:23:45 | bauzas | I just hope we won't find a regression | |
| 16:24:09 | bauzas | any question about RC phases or Dalmatian ? | |
| 16:25:22 | bauzas | looks not, moving on | |
| 16:25:48 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:26:01 | bauzas | #action bauzas to provide a new etherpad for Dalmatian | |
| 16:26:13 | bauzas | for the moment, we don't have priorities | |
| 16:26:21 | bauzas | I'll start to look at some spec changes next week | |
| 16:26:40 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:26:43 | bauzas | elodilles: go for it | |
| 16:26:47 | elodilles | o/ | |
| 16:26:50 | elodilles | #info stable/2024.1 branch is open for bugfix backports | |
| 16:27:01 | elodilles | of course as bauzas wrote: only rc critical | |
| 16:27:04 | elodilles | for this time | |
| 16:27:11 | elodilles | #info stable gates seem to be OK | |
| 16:27:45 | bauzas | cool | |
| 16:27:56 | elodilles | (as we discussed, there are jobs that fail intermittently :/) | |
| 16:28:05 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:28:33 | elodilles | that's it from me about stable branches | |
| 16:29:38 | bauzas | cool thanks | |
| 16:29:45 | bauzas | #topic vmwareapi 3rd-party CI efforts Highlights | |
| 16:29:47 | bauzas | fwiesel: ? | |
| 16:29:57 | fwiesel | #info CI comments on openstack/nova CR confirmed to be working. | |
| 16:30:06 | fwiesel | Best maybe seen here: | |
| 16:30:08 | fwiesel | #link https://review.opendev.org/dashboard/36571 | |
| 16:30:32 | fwiesel | #info Fixed FIPs instability. Tests quite reproducible. Only one error left with all proposed patches applied. | |
| 16:30:54 | fwiesel | The issue and fix were in retrospect easy... we have now a working pipeline. | |
| 16:31:01 | bauzas | \o/ | |
| 16:31:28 | fwiesel | Just with the new branches came in some instability, as it expects all service to actually have the branch. | |
| 16:32:00 | fwiesel | I.e. it fails now to check out stable/2024.1 for requirements, but we have it in nova. Not sure, if I should do something about that one. | |
| 16:32:14 | fwiesel | Missed that one: | |
| 16:32:15 | fwiesel | #link http://openstack-ci-logs.global.cloud.sap/sapcc-nova--nmllh/tempest.html | |
| 16:32:29 | fwiesel | The tempest test with the last open problem. | |
| 16:32:30 | elodilles | now ~everything should have branched (well, requirements, devstack and grenade will be created around end of week) | |
| 16:32:38 | bauzas | are you sure you use the requirements from the stable releases ? | |
| 16:32:55 | bauzas | fwiesel: awesome about where you are | |
| 16:33:32 | fwiesel | Missing now are hopefully only cleaning up the rough edges... A nicer UI with linkable lines we still are missing. | |