Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2025-05-20
15:55:20 Uggla Nova meeting in ~5mn
16:01:41 opendevmeet The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
16:01:41 opendevmeet Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:01:41 opendevmeet Meeting started Tue May 20 16:01:41 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is Uggla. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:41 Uggla #startmeeting nova
16:01:47 Uggla Hello everyone
16:02:20 gibi o/
16:02:33 dansmith o/
16:02:38 gmaan o/
16:02:52 masahito o/
16:02:54 fwiesel o/
16:02:54 bauzas o/
16:03:46 Uggla #topic Bugs (stuck/critical)
16:04:06 elodilles o/
16:04:07 Uggla #info No Critical bug
16:04:16 Uggla #info https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2110545 from last week.
16:04:24 Uggla #info We merged https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/949622 proposal to skip the the problematic job.
16:04:39 gibi we probably need to decrease the severity of it now that it is not blocking the gate
16:04:57 gibi moved it to High now
16:05:02 Uggla ok I was about to ask about it
16:05:09 Uggla https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/922140 bauzas working on a patch to enable nova-next.
16:05:39 Uggla bauzas, am i correct with ^ ?
16:05:40 bauzas I still need to understand why compute1 doesn't like me
16:05:54 bauzas but let's not discuss my problem now
16:06:25 bauzas I would appreciate some devstack/zuul expert to help me finding the cause that's it
16:07:10 Uggla cool, it is on a good path to be resolved.
16:07:13 bauzas tldr: multi-node's compute1 apparently doesn't get the right repo branch
16:07:49 Uggla bauzas, anything else you want to add ?
16:08:28 Uggla seems not so moving on
16:08:33 Uggla #topic Gate status
16:08:42 Uggla #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure Nova gate bugs
16:08:47 Uggla #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-ci-failures-minimal
16:08:55 Uggla #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&branch=stable%2F*&branch=master&pipeline=periodic-weekly&skip=0 Nova&Placement periodic jobs status
16:09:02 Uggla #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag.
16:09:05 bauzas Uggla: sorry, nope
16:09:08 Uggla #info Please try to provide meaningful comment when you recheck
16:09:49 Uggla #topic tempest-with-latest-microversion job status
16:10:00 Uggla #link https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=tempest-with-latest-microversion&skip=0
16:10:16 Uggla gmaan, do you want to say something about it ?
16:11:00 gmaan one update, keypair test passing. I was working for server tags tests which need more update as its schema missing since starting
16:11:21 gmaan it in-progress https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/949682
16:11:26 gmaan sorry instance action
16:11:32 gmaan that is all for this week
16:11:41 Uggla gmaan, thx
16:11:53 Uggla #topic Release Planning
16:11:58 Uggla #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html
16:12:05 Uggla #info Nova deadlines are set in the above schedule
16:12:15 Uggla #info Only 2 weeks before Nova Spec Soft Freeze, do not forget to submit your specs.
16:12:31 Uggla #topic Review priorities
16:12:36 Uggla #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-status
16:12:49 Uggla FYI I have requested #openstack-nova channel ops for sean-k-mooney, bauzas, gibi, dansmith, melwitt, Uggla
16:13:34 gibi thanks1
16:13:38 sean-k-mooney ack. i suspect we will very rarely need to use that
16:13:53 sean-k-mooney but it would have been nice to have been able to fix the topic before
16:14:31 gibi yeah it is only for the topic
16:14:31 Uggla I think we should start reviewing and approving specs.
16:14:51 bauzas noted
16:15:08 Uggla Let's start with : https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/945549, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/947542, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/949504
16:15:31 Uggla The 2 last ones are reproposal, so it will be glad to approved them.
16:16:07 Uggla The first one is about cloud hypervisor. It was reviewed by Dan
16:16:29 Uggla But that would cool to have feedbacks from another core.
16:16:46 dansmith fwiesel: I reviewed that spec, but I'm not going to approve it, FWIW
16:16:51 sean-k-mooney i pushed my pending comments...
16:16:55 dansmith oops, sorry Uggla: ^
16:17:07 sean-k-mooney i really need to stop forgetign to do that
16:17:26 dansmith I don't have time to really review the implementation in detail and so I don't want to be the +2 on the spec
16:17:43 sean-k-mooney if i recall correctly they have set up a ppa to rpovide the libvirt integration.
16:17:55 Uggla cool, the author pinged me and was worried, so that's cool if he has new feedback.
16:17:58 sean-k-mooney that solves part of the how can we test this in ci aspect
16:19:07 sean-k-mooney i think were we are right now is
16:19:16 Uggla Also FYI I think the document is up2date regarding the current spec status, so feel free to pick specs for review.
16:19:16 sean-k-mooney without seeign the code and some work towards the integration
16:19:28 sean-k-mooney we cant really make much more of a judvemnt call on the desgin
16:19:54 masahito hi, we started to update the supporting trait tracking by the provider.yaml feature nova-spec with PoC. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/937587
16:20:00 sean-k-mooney so we coudl approve the spec btu we cant really commit to landign the feature until they start building it out and imporantly the devstack supprot and ci for the same
16:21:22 Uggla sean-k-mooney, sure I think approving the spec is good. So author can "check" that box.
16:21:25 sean-k-mooney Uggla: the vtpm spec is on my radar to review this week. if the cinder one actully makes progress i dont have issues with that either but i have not reviewd it since last cycle. im not sure if we really want to go into details on those in real time
16:21:50 gibi is it a general rule that we should not +2 a spec if we are not commiting to review the impl?
16:22:12 dansmith sean-k-mooney: agreed, I think we need to see a little sniff of the implementation in CI
16:22:12 sean-k-mooney in the past no.
16:22:31 dansmith gibi: not a hard rule, I just think for something like this I'm going to avoid putting my name on such an effort
16:22:39 sean-k-mooney but there is at least some expecation i guess that if you do +2 and the authour has questions you will at least try to guide them
16:22:59 gibi dansmith: ack
16:23:23 sean-k-mooney dansmith: i thinik if you know you wont have time then signaling that is also valuable
16:23:28 gibi sean-k-mooney: yeah by voting on the spec I agree I will be around to answer questions about the spec
16:25:09 Uggla Something to add ?
16:25:36 sean-k-mooney i think its good to call out the spec that are ready for review but i think we need to actully do the review async
16:25:59 sean-k-mooney so unless you have specific question i would suggest we move on and if we want to have a spec review day
16:26:28 gibi +1
16:26:32 sean-k-mooney we can do that but do that at/around the soft spec freeeze in june
16:26:45 Uggla sure this topic is just to highlight that specs are waiting and that we should start to review them not to be overwhelmed.
16:27:09 sean-k-mooney masahito: your sepc also has a poc implemantion if i recall correct
16:27:21 sean-k-mooney i belive gibi has alrady started to look at it too
16:27:24 masahito yup.
16:27:40 masahito is it okay to add it into the priority?
16:27:41 sean-k-mooney masahito: since you are here did you have any questions for us that you wanted input on
16:28:03 sean-k-mooney you can certenlly put it in the etherpad as ready for review if you think it is
16:28:05 gibi sean-k-mooney: yeah I looked at the PoC and I liked what I saw
16:28:25 masahito nothing now. i think the spec and poc need first review round now.
16:28:58 sean-k-mooney gibi: ack i opened it but didnt get to read it yet. masahito: ack

Earlier   Later