Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-09-06
15:28:09 mriedem oooo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrfhsxxmdE
15:28:48 jangutter The only "stan" I know is https://mc-stan.org
15:30:13 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Do not query allocations twice in finish_revert_resize https://review.opendev.org/678827
15:37:55 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Allow resizing server with port resource request https://review.opendev.org/679019
15:41:27 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate the XenAPIDriver https://review.opendev.org/680732
15:41:38 mriedem efried: dansmith: gibi: bauzas: alex_xu: melwitt: stephenfin: fyi ^
15:41:48 dansmith hoo boy
15:42:01 mriedem i'll post to the ML
15:42:12 stephenfin Ima +2 that so hard.
15:42:19 stephenfin after the ML post, of course
15:46:25 mriedem http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-September/009180.html
15:47:37 mriedem stephenfin: since you smelled it, maybe you should deal up an etherpad for rc todo stuff like the prelude reno
15:47:47 mriedem i'm auto delegating efried delegating that to me
15:48:55 stephenfin mriedem: Sure https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-train-prelude
15:51:25 efried thanks
15:51:39 efried is a prelude related to cycle highlights?
15:51:44 mriedem sort of,
15:51:46 efried cause I could use a delegate for that as well
15:51:53 mriedem the prelude generally feeds into highlights
15:52:10 mriedem the highlights have to be wordsmithed a bit for marketing speak
15:52:17 efried it's cruel that first draft of highlights is due the day of FF.
15:52:35 mriedem "the compute team leveraged the synergy of the cloud to...deprecate the xenapi driver"
15:52:45 mriedem efried: yup
15:52:50 mriedem i've complained about that before
15:53:08 mriedem smcginnis is good at suggestions on the highlights,
15:53:13 mriedem he's nearly executive level management at this point
15:53:19 stephenfin efried: I'm hoping to put together one of those internally to figure out what we need to test/document for Train/OSP16. I'll share it but it won't be 'til Wednesday week, which is probably too late?
15:53:19 mriedem he only speaks that langauge
15:53:38 mriedem stephenfin: FF is thursday
15:53:46 efried stephenfin: unless you accept that this task has been delegated to you.
15:54:02 efried then Thursday is the "deadline" for the "first draft", so Wednesday is a whole day early!
15:54:19 efried iow, it's all yours, and I don't need to vet/edit/revise it.
15:55:15 smcginnis efried: I'm not happy about the deadline either, but the OSF marketing folks said they needed that info earlier. :/
15:55:47 mriedem need to copy/paste into a chart asap
15:55:50 stephenfin efried, mriedem: okay, I'll do it Monday
15:56:17 mriedem maybe we should put an easter egg in the highlights...
15:56:21 mriedem see who's paying attention
15:56:22 efried I'm not blaming anyone, and I'm sure there's a "good" reason. It's just like, we're already all one-armed paper hangers already.
15:56:29 efried mriedem: love that idea.
15:56:45 mriedem "nova is deprecated, all hail serverless"
16:00:16 stephenfin There's one non-doc patch left in the remove-consoleauth series that I thought had already merged. If anyone has bandwidth to push it through (melwitt is +2), that'd be dandy https://review.opendev.org/#/c/652970/
16:00:29 stephenfin I'm just going to abandon the other two
16:02:57 dustinc mriedem, efried, dtantsur|afk: all caught up, thanks for your help
16:04:29 efried stephenfin: left a question there
16:04:41 efried it looks like a behavior change to me
16:05:14 mriedem efried: +2 on that deps update for the sighup fix https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679974/ - mnaser / dansmith fyi on that
16:05:21 efried thanks mriedem
16:05:23 mriedem definitely rc blocker
16:06:28 dansmith efried: I was thinking you had tested something related to sighup and decided that it was *not* properly restarting us after the fix
16:06:35 dansmith efried: did I misunderstand that or did something else change?
16:07:00 efried dansmith: that was at the point where we only had the oslo.service fix. I dug further and fixed the oslo.privsep issue. With both fixes together, shit works.
16:07:11 dansmith gotcha okay cool
16:07:13 efried links from that patch --^
16:07:54 dansmith efried: yeah okay I didn't get that from the reno when I first read it,
16:08:03 dansmith but I didn't study both bugs and just wanted to make sure
16:08:10 efried ++
16:08:16 melwitt efried, stephenfinI think you're right :/ I didn't notice that. commenting
16:08:37 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] testing with new lable. https://review.opendev.org/680738
16:08:37 openstackgerrit sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [DNM] testing with old lable https://review.opendev.org/680739
16:08:44 efried melwitt: looking again, I think the one I commented on is okay, but the one a couple lines down should be access_url, not access_url_base.
16:08:46 sean-k-mooney ignore those by the way ^
16:09:04 sean-k-mooney im trying to debug stuff.
16:09:28 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Find instance in another cell during floating IP re-association https://review.opendev.org/656594
16:09:37 melwitt efried: I think they should both be access_url. the second one works because it's just checking the scheme, which would be the same on both access_url_base and access_url
16:09:56 efried melwitt: access_url is a @property tho, not a field.
16:10:10 melwitt yeah, but I think you need to get the access_url first and if None, raise
16:11:02 melwitt that check is supposed to be checking whether there is an access_url available and the property can return None
16:11:09 stephenfin efried: Yeah, what melwitt is saying. I've replied on the patch
16:11:24 melwitt but I dunno, maybe it doesn't really matter because all that method is doing is validating the scheme
16:11:49 melwitt it's never going to look at anything beyond the "https" or whatever the scheme is
16:12:27 efried ah, that makes sense
16:12:44 efried arguably a bit unrelated, but sokay I guess.
16:13:32 melwitt yeah, I'd agree that using the actual access_url here would be unrelated to what this method is doing
16:14:08 efried melwitt: If you're still good, I'll +A
16:14:12 melwitt (realized that as I typed the next two sentences)
16:15:14 melwitt efried: yeah I think it's fine after thinking through
16:16:10 efried ack, thanks for bearing with me melwitt & stephenfin
16:16:13 melwitt probably did
16:16:20 stephenfin thanks for the review (y)
16:22:59 efried sean-k-mooney: can you please ack this https://review.opendev.org/#/c/680094/ ?
16:23:54 sean-k-mooney oh the os-vif request
16:24:02 sean-k-mooney yes i wanned to double check one thing
16:24:08 sean-k-mooney but i think its fine
16:24:16 efried sean-k-mooney: ...per http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-September/009182.html
16:24:26 efried thank you
16:24:39 sean-k-mooney we did 2 train release already for m1 and m2 so this tecnically is not the first os-vif release of train
16:24:52 sean-k-mooney but i think 1.17.0 still make sense for other reasons
16:25:19 efried sean-k-mooney: right, that was the main thing I was concerned about. It looked like there were two bugfixes since the last release, but one of them seemed like it might be feature-y.
16:25:56 efried I'm sure it's not the end of the world if we go feature bump when we should have gone bugfix bump... is it smcginnis?
16:25:59 sean-k-mooney one of them was a securiy bug which has been backported
16:26:33 sean-k-mooney honestly version number are cheap so i would rather bump more then we neeeded too then not so 1.17 looks good to me
16:27:41 sean-k-mooney efried: no if we bump major it would be an issue but bumping feature should not be
16:27:56 sean-k-mooney stien is on the 1.15.x seriese anyway
16:28:30 efried I guess the only downside could be confusion of having .16 and .17 both in train. But meh.
16:28:39 smcginnis efried: So that one wasn't a new feature? I didn't go much further than the commit message.
16:29:15 efried smcginnis: the commit message sounded feature-y for sure, but there was a bug (not a bp) associated. This is what I wanted sean-k-mooney to confirm for us.
16:29:31 efried I could look at the code, but...
16:29:38 efried jangutter: you have an opinion here?
16:30:29 efried specifically: is this https://review.opendev.org/#/c/658786/ a "feature" or a "bugfix", for purposes of release numbering?
16:31:16 jangutter efried: it leans more to "feature" than bugfix, especially since the original idea was "feature".

Earlier   Later