Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-10-03
14:57:50 kashyap efried: Have not decided anything yet here: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/684375/ (on that 'preferred' thing). Will respond on the change
14:58:29 efried ack
15:00:41 efried tetsuro: o/ are you an hour off? :P
15:00:42 dansmith efried: you should approve my spec so you can include the sponsor revision in your template patch :) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686232/
15:01:23 efried dansmith: you should add the core liaison section so I don't have to :)
15:01:35 dansmith efried: before it's in the template?
15:01:56 efried sure, there's nothing preventing additional untemplated sections afaik
15:01:57 cdent efried, mriedem : we got rid of healing of any allocations for healthy instance in nova-compute, yes? So if a nova-compute comes up and can't find a resource provider for itself, it will create one and its inventory but that's it. To fix things 'heal allocations' in nova-manage is the way to go.
15:02:10 efried dansmith: I'm only half serious, will review
15:02:14 dansmith efried: not sure I could get behind that heresy
15:02:49 sean-k-mooney while we are talking about specs ill jsut leave this one here https://review.opendev.org/#/c/683174/
15:02:52 efried cdent: I don't remember, would have to go look
15:03:07 sean-k-mooney efried: is there a patch i should rebase it on?
15:03:21 cdent efried: if it's gone, I'm considering ways of putting it back...
15:03:23 sean-k-mooney or just wait for the template change to merge
15:03:24 dansmith efried: well, if you find something to -1 over I'll add it in there
15:03:30 efried sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/
15:03:46 efried dansmith: ack. May be a little bit, though, I'm kinda backed up.
15:03:56 sean-k-mooney efried: thanks
15:03:58 efried (insert metamucil joke)
15:04:21 dansmith my spec is very fiber-rich, fwiw
15:04:34 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/python-novaclient stable/rocky: Stop silently ignoring invalid 'nova boot --hint' options https://review.opendev.org/685983
15:04:35 efried sean-k-mooney: hold on a tick, I need to make an update to that.
15:04:49 dansmith melwitt: you probably would also be interested in approving my patch: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686232/ if you're around :)
15:07:13 sean-k-mooney efried: sure im on another meeting so im not going to update it until after
15:09:42 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add 'Core Liaison' section to spec template https://review.opendev.org/685857
15:09:49 efried mriedem, sean-k-mooney: done ^
15:12:06 efried dansmith: it would be neat if you would volunteer to sponsor https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/3/specs/ussuri/approved/provider-config-file.rst@319
15:12:44 efried Since it was, like, your idea
15:12:58 efried (I know, I know. But still.)
15:15:05 dansmith efried: uh, wut
15:15:37 dansmith oh you mean I said something in a PTG a year ago?
15:15:42 efried yes
15:15:48 efried you can't un-say it
15:15:57 mriedem cdent: correct
15:15:59 efried it was more like six months ago
15:16:08 efried statute of limitations
15:16:18 dansmith sure, but just because I think that's the way it should be done if we're going to do it, doesn't mean I think we should or that I want to put my neck out there for it, right?
15:17:22 dansmith I guess it depends on whether we tie the sponsorship thing purely to "help the contributor with the process" or "I plan to review this myself"
15:18:01 efried yeah, good point; I would definitely like you to be involved in the reviews; I'm mentoring dustinc either way.
15:18:04 dansmith I'll look it over and see what I think, but I kinda feel like I want to know what the ratelimiting number is going to be before I decide what I'm going to throw my support behind
15:18:09 efried (and reviewing the code either way)
15:18:49 efried dansmith: fair, though for simplicity, it may help to keep those things mentally separate. You can sponsor a thing, but it could still fall off the bottom at spec freeze time.
15:19:28 dansmith efried: not at spec freeze time, but at the "what are the top 25 things" point right?
15:19:51 sean-k-mooney that i would expect to be around ptg time
15:20:03 sean-k-mooney or just after ptg but before spec freeze
15:20:14 dansmith neither of us are going to be at ptg, so...
15:20:19 mriedem efried: comments on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685857/
15:20:30 efried dansmith: yes, I was thinking spec freeze time would be when we do the cut
15:20:39 efried but tbd
15:20:41 dansmith efried: wait, what?
15:21:04 dansmith efried: so we're going to put a bunch of specs in and then draw some line and what, remove the ones that aren't above the line?
15:21:18 dansmith maybe we need a different directory for almost-approved ? :)
15:21:41 dansmith btw,
15:21:44 efried yeah, something like that; if they're still unapproved we leave them unapproved (abandon, propose to backlog, whatever) and if they're already approved in the specs repo, we pull them out (and shunt them to backlog or whatever)
15:22:04 dansmith we should put them not in the approved directory then, IMHO
15:22:07 dansmith and btw,
15:22:15 efried this is probably why "direction" and "definition" are different fields in lp
15:22:26 dansmith I'm not trying to be too demanding, I just think we need to figure out what this process is if we're going to do it,
15:22:31 mriedem specs/ussuri/foreplay/
15:22:52 dansmith because if I got my spec in the approved directory and then it gets ripped out later I'm going to be more confused than any of your bullets in your commit message :)
15:22:57 efried approving "definition" means "if we're going to do this, this is how we're going to do it"; approving "direction" means "we're going to do it, now"
15:23:21 mriedem i think i've been out-processed for once
15:23:26 mriedem gold star
15:23:29 dansmith okay so we're going to gate the real approval in launchpad?
15:24:03 dansmith and any code that makes it in before the spec freeze is golden, and then we make the 25 cut at spec freeze time of things that aren't done?
15:24:14 efried dansmith: I agree. Ideally I would like to have left all specs and bps unapproved until cut time, and the only merge the ones above the line. But since we've already merged some, that's messy.
15:24:30 dansmith efried: well, unmerge them if you want
15:24:48 dansmith but yes, this is sounding pretty messy one way or the other
15:25:20 efried yeah, thought about that too. stephenfin has code proposed for nova-net removal; we could merge some and then if that bp doesn't make the cut... in that case probably nbd to have partially done.
15:26:10 stephenfin in nova-net case, we've removes parts of it for a few cycles now
15:26:13 efried mriedem: Sigh, yeah, I continue trying to figure out how to make it as process-lite as possible.
15:26:26 stephenfin removing things like the os-fping API in past releases
15:26:45 stephenfin that doesn't apply to everything though, of course
15:27:12 dansmith efried: I guess my point is, this is not going to be better for visibility to the contributors if it seems like we're figuring out the rules as we go, and things drag on as late as spec freeze
15:27:14 efried dansmith: but yes, quite seriously, if we can get some kind of consensus that we're going to do this thing (even if the actual number is still open for negotiation), I could go unapprove everything.
15:27:24 dansmith efried: so being upfront with them is good, but let's not have that backfire
15:28:08 dansmith efried: okay, so if we do that, can I still land code for my spec that has not been approved? normally we would try to avoid that.. landing code until the design is accepted
15:28:40 dansmith efried: or do you want some sort of half-approval for the design but not the schedule or something?
15:29:29 efried good questions, Daniel-san
15:29:42 efried so
15:29:54 dansmith not trying to be a dick, just thinking through this for my own spec
15:30:01 efried totally, much appreciated.
15:30:12 sean-k-mooney if the feature merges before we do the cut maybe we jsut ingore it for quota
15:30:23 mriedem spec freeze is feb 13 so yeah...
15:30:26 dansmith sean-k-mooney: that's not the only question
15:30:28 mriedem that's a long time to be figuring things out
15:30:32 dansmith right
15:30:47 sean-k-mooney mriedem: ah cool so its m2 not m1
15:30:56 efried even for approved blueprints and specs, we have a kind of all-or-nothing criterion we apply, where if it's important, we block the whole series until it's done. Otherwise (things like mox/nova-net/consoleauth removal etc) we allow partial as we go along.
15:31:00 efried so
15:31:07 mriedem so.. if cross-cell resize is unapproved, does that mean none of it can be approved code-wise until after spec freeze?
15:31:27 dansmith mriedem: that can't work, of course
15:31:34 mriedem cross-cell resize is not totally blocked,
15:31:39 efried we can do "definition approved" but "direction pending" until cut date, and things that can go partial can be merged during that time.
15:31:43 mriedem the switch is flipped at the n-1 patch in the series
15:31:52 efried and if we decide to cut that one, we just stop merging those
15:32:04 sean-k-mooney efried: would that not force most code to merge between m2 and m3
15:32:08 efried that way work can continue while we're in planning limbo.
15:32:16 sean-k-mooney which is the opisite of what you want

Earlier   Later