| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-06-24 | |||
| 16:05:53 | Uggla | #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html | |
| 16:05:59 | Uggla | #info Nova deadlines are set in the above schedule | |
| 16:06:19 | Uggla | #info Nova Spec review day was last week. | |
| 16:06:46 | bauzas | we have one week before the spec freeze | |
| 16:06:57 | bauzas | let's be productive :) | |
| 16:07:01 | Uggla | I'm not sure we managed to review a lot of them. As I think everybody was busy. | |
| 16:07:28 | Uggla | bauzas, You are right spec freeze is July 3rd | |
| 16:07:30 | gibi | do we want to impose a limit how much we approve based on how much bandwidth we have to review implementation? | |
| 16:07:55 | bauzas | good call, last time (Epoxy) I was figuring this wasn't needed due to the low level of approved ones | |
| 16:08:03 | bauzas | what's the current state of approved specs ? | |
| 16:08:44 | Uggla | bauzas, I'm not up2date with it. :( | |
| 16:08:50 | ratailor | How can I get reviews for https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp/show-instance-action-finish-time%22 which is already completed. | |
| 16:08:51 | fungi | that did seem like one of the upshots of the btg topic discussion too, approving a reasonable number of specs helps to not set unrealistic expectations for the people who might submit changes to implement them | |
| 16:10:30 | bauzas | https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/2025.2/ | |
| 16:10:41 | bauzas | I see 7 approved | |
| 16:10:52 | bauzas | but I can't recall whether we approved specless bps | |
| 16:11:00 | sean-k-mooney | we have | |
| 16:11:08 | gibi | eventlet removal is a specless bp | |
| 16:11:08 | sean-k-mooney | not a lot but one or two | |
| 16:11:14 | sean-k-mooney | i think thsoe are all done | |
| 16:11:19 | sean-k-mooney | well expcte eventlet | |
| 16:11:19 | Uggla | we have also some specless BP. | |
| 16:11:22 | bauzas | that would put the number to a small 10 | |
| 16:11:41 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure we shoudl set a numerical limit | |
| 16:11:54 | bauzas | I'd assume that we have a room for not more than 5 or 6 but usually we only merge ~12 features per cycle | |
| 16:12:01 | sean-k-mooney | i prefered gibis suggestion last week or +1 isntead of +2 | |
| 16:12:05 | sean-k-mooney | if you dont plan to review | |
| 16:12:08 | bauzas | so that's really a messaging | |
| 16:12:20 | bauzas | messaging question | |
| 16:12:42 | gibi | yeah I applied that last week on some specs | |
| 16:13:21 | bauzas | the real ask here is whether we want to paperwork some capacity limits while we never did before | |
| 16:13:50 | bauzas | but about the btg discussion, it has a cost : people could consider that we're committed to review their implementation, which isn't the case | |
| 16:13:56 | sean-k-mooney | if we had one i woudl likely be forece to downgrade some of my +2s to +1s we can condier it next cycle | |
| 16:14:05 | sean-k-mooney | but i dont want to chagne things this cycle at this point | |
| 16:14:06 | gibi | I think if each core is only +2 a spec if they promise to review the impl then there will be a natural emergent limt | |
| 16:14:25 | bauzas | I still want to review a couple of left specs that I got interested by | |
| 16:15:09 | bauzas | gibi: we somehow approached that on the previous PTG but we never enforced such rule yet | |
| 16:15:30 | Uggla | I agree gibi, that's probably a good method. | |
| 16:15:58 | bauzas | but we're in the middle of the acceptance process | |
| 16:17:07 | gibi | sure I don't suggest to go back and change +2s (but could be if you want) but going forward we can be limiting +2s | |
| 16:17:10 | bauzas | I mean, I'm not opposed to that, but there are precedent specs that we approved | |
| 16:18:13 | bauzas | anyway, if you feel so, do so | |
| 16:18:29 | bauzas | I'll personnally follow that rule too | |
| 16:19:44 | sean-k-mooney | i really dont want to change the rules this cycle | |
| 16:20:24 | sean-k-mooney | this is all valid for next cycle but i think its unfair to change the critiria mid way. (removing +2s) | |
| 16:20:56 | sean-k-mooney | that up to each reviewer | |
| 16:21:05 | sean-k-mooney | but i htink taht would send lot of mixed messages | |
| 16:21:19 | sean-k-mooney | we only have 9? days till spec freeze | |
| 16:21:43 | sean-k-mooney | if folks want to not add a +2 or +1 to open spec that totally fair | |
| 16:22:10 | bauzas | that's why I'm saying : as we don't have quorum now, let's just leave that to each core's opinion | |
| 16:22:19 | sean-k-mooney | +1 | |
| 16:23:14 | Uggla | +1, I think it will be ok, based on the time left. | |
| 16:23:26 | Uggla | Moving on. | |
| 16:23:39 | gibi | OK | |
| 16:23:48 | Uggla | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:23:54 | Uggla | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-status | |
| 16:24:42 | Uggla | I think we should pay attention to this one: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/951636 | |
| 16:26:38 | Uggla | #topic OpenAPI | |
| 16:26:45 | Uggla | #link: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22openapi%22+(project:openstack/nova+OR+project:openstack/placement)+-status:merged+-status:abandoned | |
| 16:27:21 | Uggla | #info 25 increase +5, there are new ones from Stephen. | |
| 16:27:45 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:27:51 | sean-k-mooney | im making my way through them | |
| 16:28:02 | sean-k-mooney | several are fixu ups form minor issues earlier in the series | |
| 16:28:26 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney, you are right there are FUP in the list. | |
| 16:29:00 | sean-k-mooney | there are currnetly about 10 queued to merge | |
| 16:29:23 | sean-k-mooney | im kind of brunt on them for tosay but im planning to loop back again later in the week | |
| 16:30:01 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney 👍 | |
| 16:30:22 | sean-k-mooney | i think gmaan has done a first pass on all the currently open ones or most of them and Uggla has reviewds many fo them too | |
| 16:30:22 | Uggla | Moving on because time is flying. | |
| 16:30:37 | sean-k-mooney | so ya good progress but we can move on | |
| 16:30:37 | Uggla | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:30:51 | Uggla | elodilles, the mic is yours | |
| 16:30:56 | elodilles | thanks Uggla | |
| 16:31:11 | elodilles | as in the past weeks, there's nothing special to report | |
| 16:31:18 | elodilles | #info stable branches (stable/2025.1 and stable/2024.*) seem to be in OK state | |
| 16:31:25 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:31:36 | elodilles | that's all, back to you Uggla | |
| 16:31:41 | Uggla | thx elodilles | |
| 16:32:27 | Uggla | Skipping next topic because fwiesel is not available | |
| 16:32:33 | Uggla | #topic Gibi's news about eventlet removal. | |
| 16:32:38 | Uggla | #link Blog: https://gibizer.github.io/categories/eventlet/ | |
| 16:32:47 | Uggla | #link nova-scheduler series is ready for core review, starting at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947966 | |
| 16:32:57 | Uggla | gibi, something you want to share. | |
| 16:33:05 | gibi | hm | |
| 16:33:06 | gibi | sorry | |
| 16:33:13 | gibi | thanks for the feedback on the series | |
| 16:33:28 | gibi | I spent time on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953121 | |
| 16:33:39 | gibi | that was triggered by the discusson on the spawn_on patch | |
| 16:33:56 | gibi | I have local changes to apply some of those to the eventlet series itself | |
| 16:34:11 | gibi | but downstream priorities stole my time | |
| 16:34:17 | bauzas | gibi: I saw the -W, can I start to review it tho ? | |
| 16:34:30 | bauzas | (I mean the spawn_on patch) | |
| 16:34:35 | gibi | bauzas: you can it is not broken. There is a missing piece that I will add | |
| 16:34:41 | gibi | all noted in the review comments | |
| 16:35:01 | gibi | to be precise I will add a missing test piece | |
| 16:35:06 | gibi | not production code piece | |
| 16:35:14 | bauzas | ack | |
| 16:35:36 | gibi | and | |
| 16:35:48 | gibi | there is the governance discussion about when to drop eventlet | |
| 16:36:00 | gibi | honestly I'm a bit lost how to move that forward | |