| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-05 | |||
| 20:01:49 | sdague | so, stuff happens | |
| 20:02:13 | mriedem | i agree that not having a rushed clusterfck of a release in ocata would have been better :) | |
| 20:02:21 | mriedem | and i think we retrospected on that | |
| 20:02:21 | sdague | mriedem: right, also that | |
| 20:02:36 | sdague | anyway | |
| 20:02:48 | mriedem | but i will say i'm happy with the focus put on the in-tree docs for placement and cells v2 that a bunch of people worked on | |
| 20:03:04 | mriedem | in years past our bar for documentation of features in tree was non-existent | |
| 20:03:11 | mriedem | just like our bar for requiring testing | |
| 20:03:25 | sdague | my point is, there is totally legit criticism on some things that were less than ideal for service / major feature rollout. | |
| 20:03:45 | sdague | but that's very different than saying those are gratuitous features | |
| 20:03:47 | mriedem | sure, i don't disagree, and i think we/i have been as critical | |
| 20:05:49 | sdague | I'm just sick of "features trump stability/usability" where features are code for "stuff I don't like or understand" and "stability/usability" is code for "my personal priority". And don't want to let that one slide this time. | |
| 20:12:32 | dansmith | I especially like "rearchitect the entire project ... in a branch" | |
| 20:17:52 | sdague | yeh... I am sure the upgrade process would be very smooth there | |
| 20:28:27 | cdent | Is "solid governance model" code for "not letting the devs decide"? | |
| 20:34:57 | sdague | probably | |
| 20:35:19 | sdague | or, more likely "put my distguished architect in charge" | |
| 20:35:57 | sdague | ok... I'm saving to draft a response on that last oracle one. Because that's going to spiral out of control if I don't | |
| 20:36:04 | sdague | I should make sure mordred sees it | |
| 20:36:38 | sdague | because the "we need 12 months to integrate our value add".... is kind of trigger words | |
| 20:38:07 | cdent | heh | |
| 20:38:37 | cdent | I have a sort of point of order question, or something like that: | |
| 20:39:35 | cdent | Why are people so worried about shit spiralling out of control? From a slightly different point of view that looks like people just avoiding the truth and putting more barriers in place to getting to the root causes of problems. | |
| 20:40:16 | cdent | I know, as mriedem so eloquently puts it, there's a lot of bitter feelings, but that's a symptom of a greater disease, not the problem itself | |
| 20:40:20 | mriedem | is it bad to pick a fight with what is probably an oracle exec? | |
| 20:41:14 | cdent | I suppose there's a chance that disagreement on this stuff is just the nature of the universe, so keeping it in a pot is best, but that feels a bit dystopic. | |
| 20:41:19 | sdague | cdent: because not everyone has your patience level for email fights | |
| 20:41:25 | mriedem | "There needs to be more customer and vendor driven involvement to solidifying a core set of features that everyone can rely on working consistently across releases and upgrades." | |
| 20:41:29 | mriedem | ^ well no sh*t | |
| 20:41:40 | mriedem | so pony up the leads here oracle | |
| 20:42:22 | mriedem | sdague: oh heh, i just replied to that one | |
| 20:42:32 | mriedem | i couldn't resist | |
| 20:42:35 | cdent | please please sdague email _discussions_ ;) | |
| 20:42:42 | sdague | many people find the random flaming basically too emotionally sapping to want to participate in discussions at all, so what happens is all the thoughtful middle gives up | |
| 20:42:42 | cdent | why should you resist mriedem | |
| 20:42:50 | mriedem | i'm glad i wasn't the only one that interpreted "we need you to do LTS because we have a hard time keeping up with our forks" | |
| 20:43:14 | dansmith | at least oracle funds so many people working on stuff in the community | |
| 20:43:44 | mriedem | to date, there is one person from oracle helping with multiattach | |
| 20:44:05 | mriedem | i will give credit where credit is due | |
| 20:44:15 | cdent | sdague: I guess I'm weird: I'm so conscious of the under- or un-expressed emotion that that is the thing that I find so sapping. | |
| 20:44:28 | cdent | incredibly so | |
| 20:45:11 | sdague | cdent: sure, that might be you. Lots of people basically end up ignoring the whole of the mailing list for some number of weeks after this because they see the mailing list as a place where loud people yell about things. | |
| 20:45:43 | cdent | do you consider the current conversation to be yelling already or not quite there yet? | |
| 20:45:56 | sdague | I think it is just about there | |
| 20:45:57 | mriedem | stvnoyes: btw, let me thank you personally for helping out with the multiattach stuff | |
| 20:46:27 | sdague | cdent: which is why I "save draft" on my last email | |
| 20:46:29 | mriedem | stvnoyes: also gave you a tip in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456877/6/nova/compute/manager.py | |
| 20:46:47 | cdent | wow. I guess I spent too much time on usenet in the 90s | |
| 20:46:51 | sdague | cdent: yep | |
| 20:47:35 | cdent | to me this feel like polite but earnest dinner conversation | |
| 20:47:57 | sdague | I think if you polled the audience you would not get that reaction | |
| 20:50:14 | melwitt | mriedem: cool, I figured. since we're going to be at the summit anyway, we could chat briefly about it then | |
| 20:50:32 | mriedem | melwitt: perhaps on thursday night | |
| 20:50:45 | mriedem | which is the only night i'll get to enjoy the company of my fellow nova compatriots | |
| 20:52:00 | melwitt | mriedem: k. bummer we only get to hang with you one evening | |
| 20:52:12 | mriedem | and sunday night | |
| 20:52:13 | mriedem | and friday morning | |
| 20:52:22 | mriedem | and the 2 minutes in between sessions | |
| 20:52:29 | efried | mriedem Would you mind pushing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391288/ ? I'm getting merge conflicts up the chain, and would like to limit how much rebasing is needed. | |
| 20:53:23 | mriedem | efried: don't you know i'm all riled up? | |
| 20:53:28 | mriedem | :) | |
| 20:53:37 | efried | mriedem Me too. The day I've had. | |
| 20:53:53 | mriedem | just blame it on thorst_afk | |
| 20:53:57 | efried | Always. | |
| 20:54:21 | thorst_afk | he's always afk | |
| 20:54:38 | melwitt | hah | |
| 20:56:16 | efried | Honestly, I'm not sure how https://review.openstack.org/#/c/443189/ got a merge conflict but its predecessors didn't. | |
| 20:56:32 | efried | It didn't touch any non-PowerVM files. | |
| 20:57:32 | mriedem | melwitt: i'm suprised this doesn't result in a keyerror | |
| 20:57:32 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456877/7/nova/tests/unit/compute/test_compute.py@10260 | |
| 20:57:36 | mriedem | since it's not using a kwarg | |
| 20:57:58 | mriedem | oh i know why | |
| 20:58:02 | mriedem | it's using attachment_id as the message | |
| 20:58:55 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah, that might match because of python named argument matching? | |
| 20:59:08 | mriedem | def __init__(self, message=None, **kwargs): | |
| 20:59:08 | mriedem | no i think it's because | |
| 20:59:12 | mriedem | if not message: | |
| 20:59:23 | mriedem | if you overwrite the message, we don't try the msg % kwargs | |
| 20:59:26 | mriedem | and get the KeyError | |
| 20:59:37 | melwitt | oh, I see. | |
| 21:00:00 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add Cinder v3 detach to shutdown_instance https://review.openstack.org/456877 | |
| 21:02:03 | melwitt | I was thinking of the named argument thing but that works in the opposite way. you can specify positional args as kwargs by name (and in wrong order) and it will still work | |
| 21:02:56 | melwitt | s/positional/normal/ | |
| 21:03:47 | efried | aHA! | |
| 21:03:51 | efried | It's melwitt's fault! | |
| 21:04:14 | efried | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462764/3/nova/tests/unit/virt/powervm/test_driver.py | |
| 21:04:33 | melwitt | lol, you meant literally | |
| 21:04:34 | mriedem | heh, well, it's really your fault | |
| 21:05:14 | mriedem | stvnoyes: btw, reverify is ignored | |
| 21:05:15 | mriedem | use recheck | |
| 21:06:07 | efried | So, hm, is there any way for me to fix my merge conflict without rebasing the predecessors? | |
| 21:18:34 | thingee | hey anyone oppose me proposing the deprecation of the trusted filter? | |
| 21:18:54 | thingee | it has been experimental since it has existed in may 28 2012 | |
| 21:20:06 | cdent | new things crawl out of the woodwork every day | |
| 21:20:52 | thingee | aight, I'll send an email to ops list to see if anyone cares. | |
| 21:21:00 | cdent | good plan | |
| 21:22:34 | thingee | http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2017-May/013371.html boom | |
| 21:39:31 | stvnoyes | mriedem: ok thanks. I had read somewhere that reverify was used to re-kick a gate test, but it must have been stale info | |
| 22:20:47 | openstackgerrit | Mike Perez proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate scheduler trusted filter https://review.openstack.org/463065 | |
| 22:24:08 | openstackgerrit | Mike Perez proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate scheduler trusted filter https://review.openstack.org/463065 | |