| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-07-18 | |||
| 09:27:25 | kashyap | (I'm asking because, I'm providing a data point for those who are mailing lists, and are considering web-based workflows, GitLab/GitHub; not Gerrit at this point) | |
| 09:27:45 | kashyap | I think `gertty` would be another for those who like the offline caching and terminal-based reviews | |
| 09:29:44 | sean-k-mooney | its mainly git review for me. with web for review. i strongly dislike mailing list based workflows to the point that unless that project also has patchwork i almost entirly avoid them | |
| 09:29:59 | sean-k-mooney | at least when it comes to code reviews | |
| 09:30:06 | sean-k-mooney | gertty if fine for reviewing | |
| 09:30:35 | sean-k-mooney | but its offline asspect comes at the cost that it needs to build up an sql database of the open changes | |
| 09:30:45 | sean-k-mooney | that can be slow with large repos like nova | |
| 09:31:15 | gibi | efried: I added comments to https://review.opendev.org/#/c/612497 | |
| 09:31:39 | kashyap | I maintain Gertty in Fedora, FWIW, because I enjoy the offline ability. And the DB build-up is a negligible cost | |
| 09:31:50 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: It's not SQL; but Berkely | |
| 09:32:07 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: no is sqlight3 | |
| 09:32:11 | kashyap | Ah, right | |
| 09:32:13 | kashyap | Sorry | |
| 09:33:52 | sean-k-mooney | there are allo tools like https://github.com/openstack-infra/git-restack or https://github.com/dhellmann/git-nit | |
| 09:34:28 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Thanks; /me checks | |
| 09:34:56 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: personally i find mailing list much slower and harder to follow since you have to constuct all that tooling yourself | |
| 09:34:58 | kashyap | Ah, didn't know of them | |
| 09:35:40 | sean-k-mooney | git restack is old and not really uses much i think | |
| 09:36:31 | sean-k-mooney | personally i found doing a interactive rebase manullay to the same base commit was just as quick | |
| 09:36:59 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Nod. (But the kernel and other systems folks still maintain mailing lists are the "best way" to manage large projects as kernel: https://lwn.net/Articles/702177/) | |
| 09:37:12 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Okay, thanks for the opinion and notes :-) | |
| 09:39:59 | bauzas | alex_xu: ack, will look | |
| 09:40:08 | alex_xu | bauzas: thanks | |
| 09:42:43 | bauzas | alex_xu: wow, that's a massive refactoring, I'll do this this afternoon | |
| 09:42:48 | bauzas | thanks for it | |
| 09:43:06 | bauzas | alex_xu: FWIW, I'm also working on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/589085/ | |
| 09:43:59 | alex_xu | bauzas: I guess it should works with your patch also, and you get the vgpu claim for dst host | |
| 09:44:23 | bauzas | alex_xu: that's why I need to look at your series to exactly understand how it works | |
| 09:46:06 | bauzas | alex_xu: also, a nit, I wonder if we should have a specless bp for this | |
| 09:46:35 | alex_xu | bauzas: yea, probably we can ask efried about that | |
| 10:28:33 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: bindep: Remove dead markers https://review.opendev.org/671452 | |
| 10:30:25 | stephenfin | bauzas, alex_xu: Easiest +2 you'll ever have right here https://review.opendev.org/671452 | |
| 10:30:44 | bauzas | stephenfin: hands on deck | |
| 11:06:16 | kashyap | bauzas: Isn't it simple enough to just go ahead and +W it? | |
| 11:06:44 | kashyap | (It being the 'bindep' one) | |
| 11:06:48 | bauzas | no | |
| 11:07:08 | bauzas | fast-approval seems right, but honestly people could have concerns | |
| 11:08:11 | kashyap | If there _can_ be concerns, okay, fair enough. | |
| 11:08:20 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: even if it was stephenfin wrote it so we shoul dnot have a redhat core +2+w without someone else looking at it | |
| 11:08:58 | kashyap | Well, not that asinine reason again. There are sensible exceptions | |
| 11:09:10 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: yep this is not one of them | |
| 11:09:22 | kashyap | On that point, see my extended point here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-May/006080.html | |
| 11:09:28 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Okay. | |
| 11:09:49 | kashyap | I don't care about this change particularly, BTW. Just the simplicity of it is what prompted me to say it. | |
| 11:18:29 | cdent | kashyap++ and *hugs* | |
| 11:18:47 | kashyap | :-) | |
| 11:22:05 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: For argument's sake, why is this not one of them? Precise is even EOL | |
| 11:22:34 | kashyap | This is definitely one of those dead-simple changes that doesn't require an completely unhinged process to interfere | |
| 11:22:43 | kashyap | Anyway, not my circus, not my clowns. | |
| 11:23:31 | kashyap | s/"an completely"/"a completely"/ | |
| 11:27:55 | sean-k-mooney | ignoring the same company aspect. one out of curtusy to other disto maintainer we shoudl not fast merge thing related to our competitor distro without any external reveiew, second we only use singel +2 in very limited cases like when you would have been the second +2 but you fix a minor nit in someone esle pathc or rebased a patch that went int merge confcit and you are proxing a previous +2 from a | |
| 11:27:57 | sean-k-mooney | core, third its not urgent, i.e. there is no bug associated wthi this stepen jsut noticed it and its not blocking the gate. put that to gether with the same company core thing and even though its trivial and it looks correct i dont think this has a stong case for bypassing our standard policy | |
| 11:29:35 | kashyap | Sure, it is not about "urgency", but needless, grinding processes coming in the way. Also on courtesy, who says it is being incourteous? Assume good intent. | |
| 11:30:00 | kashyap | gibi: :-) I was just "thinking (or arguing) out loud". | |
| 11:31:02 | sean-k-mooney | i am assuming good intent but i would assume you would like to see change to fedora requirement before they merged if i was droping support for a fedora version | |
| 11:31:18 | kashyap | For an EOL release? I don't give a damn | |
| 11:31:48 | sean-k-mooney | anyway thanks gibi :) | |
| 11:32:18 | gibi | we an always revert such patches :) | |
| 11:32:23 | gibi | we can | |
| 11:32:26 | kashyap | Yes, exactly. | |
| 11:32:34 | kashyap | The "revert" hammer is always near by :D | |
| 11:32:49 | sean-k-mooney | keep it away from artom for a while | |
| 11:32:55 | kashyap | Haha | |
| 11:38:36 | openstackgerrit | Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: API microversion 2.75: Add 'power-update' external event https://review.opendev.org/645611 | |
| 11:39:29 | artom | What am I reverting? | |
| 11:40:05 | sean-k-mooney | hehe nothing i was just saying lets not hit you with the revert hammer for a while. | |
| 11:40:20 | sean-k-mooney | i think you have had enough heartache form it in the last week or two | |
| 11:40:38 | artom | Ugh | |
| 11:41:05 | kashyap | He was teasing you :D | |
| 11:41:32 | sean-k-mooney | more his bad luck | |
| 11:41:55 | artom | I know, the "ugh" was about the reverts, not the tease | |
| 11:48:46 | kashyap | Nod, figured as much. | |
| 12:26:02 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: migrations: libvirt: remove get_machine_ips() https://review.opendev.org/671471 | |
| 12:26:06 | artom | sean-k-mooney, ^^ | |
| 12:26:23 | artom | stephenfin, ^^ you might like the code removal aspect too :) | |
| 12:26:29 | artom | Not sure if I need a bug for that... | |
| 12:27:31 | sean-k-mooney | ya we proably should have a bug and mention the downstream one | |
| 12:27:53 | sean-k-mooney | :) +0,-55 | |
| 12:31:34 | sean-k-mooney | artom: actully we want to backport it so it need a bug | |
| 12:34:06 | stephenfin | artom: Makes sense. Do you want to backport it? | |
| 12:34:29 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: we need this on newton downstream | |
| 12:34:34 | sean-k-mooney | so yes | |
| 12:34:35 | stephenfin | I assume so, given your comment in the bug. If so, what sean-k-mooney said | |
| 12:34:36 | stephenfin | ack | |
| 12:34:36 | artom | stephenfin, it's for an internal escalation, so yeah | |
| 12:35:01 | artom | Busy with household'y stuff, will file bug | |
| 12:35:05 | artom | In a few | |
| 12:35:12 | stephenfin | That's going to be an ugly backport. You've been warned | |
| 12:35:29 | artom | I... I can't tell if you're being serious | |
| 12:35:34 | stephenfin | (look at the "Conflicts With" for an idea of the amount of _unmerged_ patches this touches) | |
| 12:35:45 | stephenfin | Oh, I'm always very serious | |
| 12:35:46 | sean-k-mooney | really? why | |
| 12:35:53 | stephenfin | Serious Steve, I've been called | |
| 12:36:03 | sean-k-mooney | i think that is likely jsut change to the module import in most cases | |
| 12:36:08 | artom | I would think most of those are just whitespace-type things | |
| 12:36:28 | artom | Ie, the excision itself is clean, but git is having trouble because what's around it changed | |
| 12:36:32 | stephenfin | Quite possibly. I didn't check. It doesn't matter much either. If it's got to be done, it's got to be done. | |
| 12:36:56 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: also if artom going to be the one doing it ... :) | |
| 12:37:10 | artom | Sheesh guys, team spirit and all that | |
| 12:37:34 | sean-k-mooney | we will review it for you down stream too :P | |