Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-09-06
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".
16:31:31 efried jangutter: Okay, good enough for me, thanks.
16:31:37 efried sean-k-mooney, smcginnis: ^ cool?
16:31:48 smcginnis Works for me.
16:32:11 jangutter efried: os-vif uses bugs to track features (like neutron)
16:32:39 efried smcginnis: acked, thanks for your patience.
16:32:53 efried jangutter: okay, gtk, then I'm going to have this question every release :P
16:33:53 jangutter efried, sean-k-mooney: is there a way to distinguish between [RFE] bugs and your run of the mill annoyances?
16:33:58 smcginnis Thanks for following up on that.
16:34:39 efried jangutter: With careful use of tagging, I'm sure there is. You may have even had that in place in this case - I admit I didn't look.
16:34:45 smcginnis It's been pretty common in my experience that new "features" also fix bugs, so I've never really used BPs vs bugs as an indicator.
16:35:03 efried But that would also require an understanding of whatever tag scheme by whoever's doing the looking
16:35:11 efried and yeah, more broadly, what smcginnis says.
16:36:13 efried it's on a team by team basis, so really we need team members to make this call one way or another (either by proposing the release patches themselves and noting this reasoning in the commit message, or by being pestered like this when releases are proposed "automatically" or otherwise externally to the team)

Earlier   Later