| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-06-24 | |||
| 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 | |
| 16:36:23 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903/1/goals/selected/remove-eventlet.rst | |
| 16:36:42 | gibi | I hope the tc has plans to reconcile the discussion there ;) | |
| 16:36:47 | gibi | that is it form me | |
| 16:36:57 | Uggla | thx gibi | |
| 16:37:06 | Uggla | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:37:12 | Uggla | We have 2 topics | |
| 16:37:22 | Uggla | #topic (andreykurilin) Expansion of "servers:detail:get_all_tenants" policy to other server read-only APIs (example: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952896) | |
| 16:37:32 | Uggla | andreykurilin, please go ahead | |
| 16:37:44 | andreykurilin | Hi folks! | |
| 16:38:06 | andreykurilin | I, as an operator, have a need to provide readonly access to compute resources for third-party teams | |
| 16:38:24 | andreykurilin | While list api works fine, get api provides much better UX | |
| 16:38:52 | andreykurilin | What do you think about extending current readonly apis to reuse existing policy? | |
| 16:39:23 | andreykurilin | Does it need new api micro version ? Spec? Blueprint? | |
| 16:40:40 | sean-k-mooney | one of the latter two but policy change generally dont need micro verions | |
| 16:41:57 | sean-k-mooney | we do have a spec, two in fact for the intorduction fo the manager role and service role to nova | |
| 16:42:13 | sean-k-mooney | if i recall form the mailing list dicussion you only wanted to expose 1 endpoint correct | |
| 16:42:22 | sean-k-mooney | if it was many then i would say it needs a spec | |
| 16:42:49 | andreykurilin | Yes, I need get server api exposed. Maybe server actions in future, but not at this moment | |
| 16:43:42 | Uggla | It seems gmann is not opposed to the change, which is a good sign. | |
| 16:44:26 | andreykurilin | I’m happy to commit some resources to cover more than is needed for my company, if you want, but not sure that I have enough resources to work on a big spec | |
| 16:45:00 | Uggla | I think the question is if we are ok to fix it as bug | |
| 16:46:32 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney any thought about that ? | |
| 16:47:42 | sean-k-mooney | i dont consider it a bug in teh backport sense. we could treat it as an RFE bug i.e. a bug with the rfe tag instead of a specless bluepirnt | |
| 16:48:23 | sean-k-mooney | i would suggest that if we want to do somethign this clcye we keep it small and targeted | |
| 16:48:45 | sean-k-mooney | and we can dicuss larger changes but in the context of next cycle | |
| 16:49:03 | sean-k-mooney | just being practical we hae several large api serises in flight | |
| 16:49:32 | sean-k-mooney | openapi scemea, service role and manger role | |
| 16:50:00 | sean-k-mooney | we may be ableo to review a targed patch but if you want to do many endpoint we will need more time to discss it then we have before m2 | |
| 16:50:08 | Uggla | Tbh, I would rather have a specless BP. Easier to track on my side. | |
| 16:50:23 | andreykurilin | I’m ok to have only one endpoint “fixed” this cycle | |
| 16:50:45 | andreykurilin | Creating a specless BP works for me | |
| 16:50:54 | Uggla | So andreykurilin, if you can open a specless BP so I could track it. | |
| 16:50:55 | sean-k-mooney | then i woudl suggest filing a specless blueprint for server show | |
| 16:51:13 | Uggla | 👍 | |
| 16:51:19 | sean-k-mooney | and then asking for it to be approved on the mailing list or next meeting | |
| 16:51:25 | sean-k-mooney | to give gmaan or other type to respond | |
| 16:51:37 | andreykurilin | Ok, got it. Thank you | |
| 16:51:40 | sean-k-mooney | s/type/time/ | |
| 16:52:03 | gmaan | I am ok for the spec-less BP and agree that it does not need microversion | |
| 16:52:17 | sean-k-mooney | im ok with that direction too | |