| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-08-28 | |||
| 13:14:38 | jaypipes | efried: and yeah, I appreciate you collating info on that | |
| 13:14:47 | efried | But of course | |
| 13:14:49 | jaypipes | efried: feel free to get an etherpad started too if you want | |
| 13:15:10 | efried | jaypipes You mean split out from the main PTG one? | |
| 13:15:31 | efried | Can do | |
| 13:15:57 | jaypipes | efried: yup. I presume we'll have a session on that | |
| 13:16:06 | jaypipes | efried: and a separate etherpad would be good to start on | |
| 13:18:43 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-traits master: doc: Switch from oslosphinx to openstackdocstheme https://review.openstack.org/479869 | |
| 13:19:20 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Refactor libvirt.utils.execute() away. https://review.openstack.org/489816 | |
| 13:25:36 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-traits master: doc: Remove cruft from conf.py https://review.openstack.org/480090 | |
| 13:26:20 | sdague | efried: looking | |
| 13:27:13 | sdague | efried: done | |
| 13:27:18 | efried | sdague Thanks! | |
| 13:30:08 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Update PCI passthrough doc for moved options https://review.openstack.org/498461 | |
| 13:30:47 | edleafe | Scheduler subteam meeting in 30 minutes in #openstack-meeting-alt | |
| 13:30:49 | efried | stephenfin ^ split out from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/493701/ as requested, and filed against a bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1713502) | |
| 13:30:50 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1713502 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "PCI passthrough documentation needs updating since options moved to [pci] section" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Eric Fried (efried) | |
| 13:31:18 | efried | Not sure who can answer whether that should be backported to at least pike | |
| 13:31:28 | efried | (Backport to ocata would be a non-cherry-pick, cause docs all moved) | |
| 13:32:28 | stephenfin | efried: Yeah, iirc they didn't version the configuration guide so there's nothing to backport to for Ocata | |
| 13:32:49 | efried | okay. The deprecated options still work, so it's not crucial. | |
| 13:33:04 | stephenfin | I think doc patches should go back to Pike though. Maybe sdague would have some thoughts on the matter? | |
| 13:33:11 | stephenfin | Oh, so it would actually | |
| 13:33:52 | sdague | stephenfin: which doc patches? | |
| 13:34:03 | stephenfin | sdague: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/498461/1 | |
| 13:34:17 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: [Trivial] docstrings, typos, minor refactoring https://review.openstack.org/493701 | |
| 13:34:47 | efried | stephenfin Rebased ^ on top | |
| 13:35:09 | sdague | yeh, admin guide stuff should go back as it's all published per release | |
| 13:35:38 | stephenfin | efried: Odd. I expected the +2 to disappear. Apparently not | |
| 13:36:15 | efried | stephenfin When gerrit recognizes an auto rebase, it carries code reviews forward. | |
| 13:36:23 | efried | Which is *almost* always okay :) | |
| 13:38:49 | efried | stephenfin sdague https://review.openstack.org/#/c/498463/ is the pike cherry-pick. So should I go make the change in ocata too? | |
| 13:40:06 | sdague | efried: no, the admin guide is not in ocata | |
| 13:40:20 | efried | sdague Okay, that's why I can't find it :) | |
| 13:40:24 | sdague | yep | |
| 13:40:26 | efried | That doc must have existed somewhere? | |
| 13:40:30 | efried | Just in spec form mebbe? | |
| 13:40:34 | sdague | on the openstack manuals side | |
| 13:41:07 | sdague | only in pike did the manuals go in tree for nova | |
| 13:42:12 | efried | sdague Right; so my question is whether I should go find and update that manual wherever it lived in ocata | |
| 13:44:15 | stephenfin | efried: I don't think they versioned the admin guide either, so there's nothing to backport to for Ocata | |
| 13:44:26 | sdague | yeh, I'm not sure I would bother | |
| 13:44:30 | efried | cool cool. | |
| 13:58:47 | mriedem | gmann: i'm not sure https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490722/ warrants a microversion bump | |
| 13:58:56 | mriedem | should probably be discussed in the nova-api meeting this week | |
| 14:00:01 | cdent | mriedem: i rebased your shared providers functional test again. same deal as last time: leaving the failing tests with TODOs. I did make a couple of tweaks to report client in the patch above it to get a few more things passing | |
| 14:01:53 | mriedem | cdent: that was pretty incomplete from what i remember | |
| 14:02:11 | mriedem | i know i need to abandon the wip for the fixes in the report client | |
| 14:02:26 | cdent | It was but there were a couple of simple syntax thingies that move it forward a bit | |
| 14:21:56 | sdague | mriedem: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/496515 is probably worthy of backport | |
| 14:22:31 | sdague | I push for pike, what do you think about ocata as well? | |
| 14:23:27 | kashyap | sdague: Randomly chiming in, it sounds like backport-worthy, given the description | |
| 14:24:20 | mriedem | seems pretty low probability | |
| 14:24:46 | mriedem | wouldn't this be someone creating 2 instances with the same name on separate requests ~the same time? | |
| 14:24:56 | sdague | mriedem: no | |
| 14:25:11 | sdague | there is no name uniqueness requirement | |
| 14:25:24 | sdague | or, it's behind a config option, off by default | |
| 14:25:41 | sdague | so, it is 2 different requests, but they can be at any time | |
| 14:26:26 | mriedem | as long as you didn't delete the other first? | |
| 14:26:58 | sdague | yes | |
| 14:27:05 | sdague | but it could be made by a different tenant | |
| 14:27:43 | mriedem | this is fine to backport. it's unfortunate that a 2 line code fix requires 100+ LOC change for tests | |
| 14:27:57 | sdague | well, they tried to be comprehensive there | |
| 14:27:58 | mriedem | i assume that's just because of how tightly coupled this all ways to the driver when it was moved out of the driver and into the host module | |
| 14:28:01 | sdague | yeh | |
| 14:28:24 | kashyap | Yeah, the tests seem to be trying to be a bit more comprehensive | |
| 14:28:40 | sdague | mriedem: before I approve this change of yours, you want to put in newlines to the output for readability - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/486660 ? | |
| 14:34:23 | openstackgerrit | Alex Szarka proposed openstack/nova master: Reduce code complexity - instance.py https://review.openstack.org/359878 | |
| 14:41:14 | openstackgerrit | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Functional test: evacuate with no compute https://review.openstack.org/498482 | |
| 14:47:21 | mriedem | sdague: it's going to be a bit | |
| 14:49:56 | mriedem | sdague: please redo those cherry picks using the -x option | |
| 14:59:41 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova-specs master: SPICE native client support https://review.openstack.org/442040 | |
| 15:00:55 | dansmith | cdent: it's still totes possible and should be on the radar for sure, but we've got a giant mess at the moment, and a bunch of unfinished bits that are way higher priority, IMHO | |
| 15:00:56 | mriedem | cdent: i don't really see any reason why placement couldn't be split out, we're doing everything over the microversions onw | |
| 15:00:57 | mriedem | *now | |
| 15:01:21 | mriedem | right, was going to say, the only thing/reason to not focus on the split right now is the existing amount of stuff we have to do | |
| 15:01:36 | dansmith | especially since it's its own catalog entry, I don't think it's noticeably a nova thing to any other project other than where the code lives | |
| 15:01:46 | dansmith | yeah | |
| 15:02:15 | edleafe | dansmith: one concern was the choice to shove everything in resource_providers.py | |
| 15:02:21 | edleafe | until the split | |
| 15:02:40 | cdent | dansmith: yeah, your response points to a more detailed question: if those unfinished things are going to take a while and starting on moving things will disrupt them, there’s little point to start the extraction process soonish | |
| 15:02:41 | mriedem | was that a conscious choice? | |
| 15:03:03 | dansmith | I'm not sure what the single file has to do with anything, | |
| 15:03:13 | dansmith | and I've complained along the way that that file is too fat already | |
| 15:03:23 | mriedem | if you want to create nova/objects/alternative_hosts.py that's fine | |
| 15:03:28 | dansmith | if splitting things out of there is helpful, then | |
| 15:03:30 | dansmith | right | |
| 15:04:02 | edleafe | mriedem: yes, because having placement in Nova was always supposed to be a temporary thing, and single file would make separation easier | |
| 15:04:29 | openstackgerrit | Elod Illes proposed openstack/nova master: Functional test: cold migrate to compute down https://review.openstack.org/496280 | |
| 15:05:44 | mriedem | i don't see how it makes it really any easier | |
| 15:06:12 | mriedem | like, if we have 1 objects module or 10, that's not going to be the pain in the split | |
| 15:06:14 | cdent | assuming it is contained (down collabortion without adding up collaboration) | |
| 15:06:21 | edleafe | mriedem: I think the idea was it would keep us from scattering placement code throughout nova | |
| 15:06:29 | mriedem | sure that's fair | |
| 15:06:29 | cdent | jinxish | |
| 15:06:42 | mriedem | but that's not going to be the painful part | |
| 15:06:47 | dansmith | not at all | |
| 15:06:59 | mriedem | i imagine the db will be the hardest | |
| 15:07:01 | cdent | collabortion is my neologism of the day. I’ll have to figure out what it means. | |
| 15:07:20 | edleafe | mriedem: sure, it's just not adding to that pain | |