| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-09-18 | |||
| 12:00:27 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: your job is still running | |
| 12:00:47 | Luzi | johnthetubaguy, yes the image could be replaced, that's because a recheck would be fine | |
| 12:00:49 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Hmm, in that case, I thought it'd "reset" the -1. | |
| 12:01:01 | johnthetubaguy | Luzi: if you didn't bump across it yet, this was the original design spec: http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/rocky/implemented/nova-validate-certificates.html | |
| 12:01:01 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: You showed me a live console in the past, can you point me to that again? | |
| 12:01:19 | johnthetubaguy | Luzi: well it references the original bit at the bottom of there | |
| 12:01:27 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: that is the last job that is running http://zuul.openstack.org/stream.html?uuid=e576a55aa1d1464fbbecbdea0cd574d8&logfile=console.log | |
| 12:02:04 | sean-k-mooney | it just finished devstack and is tarting the tempest and will be starting the tempest run soon | |
| 12:02:27 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Most excellent. I _guessed_ so, but thought it shouldn't take 3+ hours. Apparently it does :-) | |
| 12:02:50 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: if you go to http://zuul.openstack.org/ and filter by 602592 you will see the rest | |
| 12:03:17 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: You're clairvoyant. That was my next question :-) To remind how I can figure it out next time | |
| 12:03:20 | kashyap | Thanks! | |
| 12:07:58 | johnthetubaguy | Luzi: this is an email thread that might be worth reading through, around when we used to do image verification: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2016-May/010554.html | |
| 12:09:11 | johnthetubaguy | Luzi: largely some basic checks we removed because once you have access to the image cache, its basically game over for a heap of reasons. Could well be something wrong in that analysis, but its worth a read of the thread for context | |
| 12:09:40 | Luzi | johnthetubaguy, thank you, i will read through | |
| 12:24:38 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-traits master: import zuul job settings from project-config https://review.openstack.org/601377 | |
| 12:33:18 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-traits master: switch documentation job to new PTI https://review.openstack.org/601378 | |
| 12:33:20 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/os-traits master: add python 3.6 unit test job https://review.openstack.org/601379 | |
| 12:44:06 | bauzas | naichuans_: nope, just the fact that we would only support multiple types once reshape is fully done | |
| 12:44:21 | bauzas | pvc: nope, you're all good, enjoy | |
| 12:47:19 | pvc | thank you so much bauzas :) | |
| 12:47:57 | stephenfin | gibi: Blogpost this week is a-ok. A dump of the commands, assuming there wasn't anything confidential in them, is also a-ok :) | |
| 12:48:23 | gibi | stephenfin: then everything is set :) rubasov will make a post and distribute it on the ML | |
| 12:48:29 | naichuans_ | bauzas: got it, thanks | |
| 12:48:33 | stephenfin | gibi: Sweet! | |
| 12:48:48 | stephenfin | gibi: Totally unrelated, fancy grabbing this patch at some point? Will unblock it's successor https://review.openstack.org/#/c/565472/ | |
| 12:48:52 | stephenfin | *its | |
| 12:48:57 | gibi | stephenfin: it was so unconfidental that you saw the demo earlier than anybody in the company ;) | |
| 12:49:11 | stephenfin | :D Touché | |
| 12:52:31 | gibi | stephenfin: ohh I +2d the successor earlier :) | |
| 12:53:48 | gibi | stephenfin: done | |
| 13:02:39 | openstackgerrit | Christian Berendt proposed openstack/nova master: Add missing backticks in nova-manage docs https://review.openstack.org/603370 | |
| 13:03:53 | bauzas | stephenfin: looks like someone saw your presentation ^ | |
| 13:05:22 | openstackgerrit | Michele Baldessari proposed openstack/nova master: Ignore ArgsAlreadyParsedError exceptions when registering logging options https://review.openstack.org/603372 | |
| 13:05:32 | efried | ō/ | |
| 13:07:21 | mriedem | brinzhang: hi | |
| 13:07:37 | brinzhang | mriedem: Hi | |
| 13:07:56 | mriedem | you had some questions? | |
| 13:08:25 | bauzas | mriedem: FWIW, working on your change locally | |
| 13:08:30 | brinzhang | yes. | |
| 13:08:37 | brinzhang | 1. about this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/599276/23/api-guide/source/polling_changes-since_parameter.rst | |
| 13:09:19 | mriedem | yeah jay is right, git mv would be better to preserve the history | |
| 13:10:55 | brinzhang | But I think "polling_changes-since_and_changes-before_parameters.rst" already contains the contents of "polling_changes-since_parameter.rst", so I think this should be replaced by current doc. As mriedem said, I need to do a redirectmatch for old links. | |
| 13:11:21 | brinzhang | ignore the last sentence. ^^ | |
| 13:12:39 | brinzhang | I think this do a rediecetmatch for old links is better | |
| 13:13:16 | mriedem | why not just rename the file as jaypipes suggested to preserve the history? | |
| 13:13:20 | mriedem | git history i mean | |
| 13:13:32 | mriedem | you have to add a redirect link either way | |
| 13:14:03 | mriedem | then it's also easier, as a reviewer, to see what you changed about the document when adding the changes-before conent | |
| 13:14:05 | mriedem | *content | |
| 13:15:07 | brinzhang | I don't think I understand the meaning of jaypipes :-( | |
| 13:16:10 | mriedem | just git mv the file to rename it | |
| 13:16:15 | mriedem | and then add the changes-before content | |
| 13:16:47 | mriedem | $ git mv api-guide/source/polling_changes-since_parameter.rst api-guide/source/polling_changes.rst | |
| 13:18:54 | brinzhang | Ok, after do this, can I replace the contents of the polling_changes-since_and_changes-before_parameters.rst file directly with polling_changes.rst? | |
| 13:19:16 | brinzhang | Not using git mv yet :-( | |
| 13:19:23 | mriedem | polling_changes-since_and_changes-before_parameters.rst becomes polling_changes.rst - it's just a file rename | |
| 13:19:31 | mriedem | and then you can edit polling_changes.rst to add changes-before content | |
| 13:20:26 | brinzhang | OK. I know. | |
| 13:25:30 | stephenfin | bauzas: :D | |
| 13:31:49 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Resource retrieving: add changes-before filter https://review.openstack.org/599276 | |
| 13:39:05 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: test resize reschedule up-calls https://review.openstack.org/603389 | |
| 13:43:53 | sean-k-mooney | looks like tetsuro has already written up the negitive memberof spec before i started https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603352/ :) | |
| 13:48:03 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: as far as I remember tetsuro grabbed that on the yesterday's scheduler meeting | |
| 13:52:18 | openstackgerrit | Brin Zhang proposed openstack/nova master: Resource retrieving: add changes-before filter https://review.openstack.org/599276 | |
| 13:53:13 | s10 | Hello. I have a question about backport https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603358 . Clean cherry-pick to stable/queens is impossible because of the https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ic853743573aa0b74d5d2c5b8b47252b875d5f7ef . Could I just cherry-pick this mox to mock change to stable/queens and build this backport on top of it or backported fix should use mox in tests? | |
| 13:55:54 | mriedem | brinzhang: that's still not a rename, | |
| 13:56:05 | mriedem | brinzhang: it's getting late for you - i can pull your change down and fix the rename | |
| 13:56:31 | brinzhang | mriedem: thank you. | |
| 13:59:02 | mriedem | s10: so that queens backport is going to fail tests or you've already modified the cherry pick? | |
| 13:59:10 | dpawlik | hi, I :a | |
| 13:59:29 | mriedem | s10: because it looks like a clean backport | |
| 13:59:59 | s10 | mriedem: I built cherry-pick fix on top of the mock to mox cherry-pick | |
| 14:00:29 | mriedem | oh so you're asking if backporting https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603353/ is ok | |
| 14:00:41 | mriedem | yet another reason why mox removal is a pain in the ass.... | |
| 14:01:20 | mriedem | s10: personally i'd prefer that we don't backport these mox->mock changes since they are usually large and hairy, | |
| 14:01:35 | mriedem | and instead just modify the conflicting backports that you need and mention the conflict in the commit message | |
| 14:01:53 | mriedem | e.g. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603358 commit message would mention the conflict because of https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ic853743573aa0b74d5d2c5b8b47252b875d5f7ef | |
| 14:02:59 | mriedem | s10: left some comments on both of those backports | |
| 14:03:05 | mriedem | let me know if you need help | |
| 14:04:31 | sean-k-mooney | mriedem: isnt this yet another reasong to finish the mox->mock stuff this cycle | |
| 14:04:32 | dpawlik | Hi, I can't find where is a problem when I deploy fresh installation of Nova. I create DB's: nova, nova_api, nova_cell0, nova_cell1 and nova_placement. On controller I execute: db sync, api_db sync, then cell_v2 map_cell0 where I set --database_connection to "nova_cell0" database. Then db online_data_migrations and I create new cell1: nova-manage cell_v2 create_cell --name cell1 where I set --database_connection to nova_c | |
| 14:04:32 | dpawlik | ell1 DB and also I change transport_url to new vhost: cell1. After creation, I rerun DB, API_DB sync, then cell_v2 discover_hosts, but still I have one issue: nova service-list shows me duplicated services. Is it something related to Queens release or I make something bad? | |
| 14:05:17 | dansmith | dpawlik: duplicate listing is almost always because you have two cell mappings pointing at the same database | |
| 14:05:45 | dpawlik | hmm | |
| 14:06:23 | openstackgerrit | Vlad Gusev proposed openstack/nova stable/queens: libvirt: Reduce calls to qemu-img during update_available_resource https://review.openstack.org/603358 | |
| 14:06:42 | dpawlik | dansmith: But in nova.conf in section [database] I have connection to "nova_cell1" DB, for nova_api connection is to nova_api DB, | |
| 14:07:21 | dansmith | dpawlik: the [database]/connection doesn't get used for this, what matters is what is in the db for cell mappings | |
| 14:07:26 | dpawlik | I got a feeling that something is missing in cells doc | |
| 14:08:13 | bauzas | gibi: those rechecks aren't super happy when you're willing to review :) | |
| 14:09:03 | dansmith | dpawlik: or that you're just reading the docs and pasting commands that don't need to be run every time and thus you now have two mappings for the same DB :) | |
| 14:09:47 | dansmith | mriedem: are you able to still push a queens release? sounds like it's been a long time since we've had one | |
| 14:10:02 | dansmith | noticed because we're missing some juicy fixes from upstream in our branch that tracks upstream releases | |
| 14:10:10 | dpawlik | how can I check what mappings are done? | |
| 14:10:10 | s10 | mriedem: the problem with not backporting mox->mock change is that every other related fix will require resolving a conflict. For example, if I want consequent change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/589567/ be backported to Queens, this conflict resolve will be needed again... | |
| 14:10:20 | gibi | bauzas: you mean I should go and fix the unrelated gate issues instead? ;) | |
| 14:10:37 | dansmith | s10: this is why mox removal is a fool's errand, IMHO :) | |
| 14:10:37 | mriedem | dansmith: i am, or anyone is really able to propose them, | |
| 14:10:37 | bauzas | gibi: nah, just that it's sad | |
| 14:10:43 | dpawlik | dansmith: how can I check what mappings are done? | |