Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-10-17
15:56:06 mriedem gibi: on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689049/1/nova/scheduler/client/report.py@1844 - i'm adding a new kwarg to handle the logic if the target consumer does not exist,
15:56:19 mriedem thoughts on variable names? i was thinking "target_is_new" or "reverting_allocations"
15:56:26 mriedem what makes more sense to you?
15:56:53 mriedem the former might be more obvious, the latter is maybe too tightly coupled to what is calling the method
16:03:26 efried melwitt: If it matters for backportability, make it a bug.
16:03:42 melwitt efried: thanks, I will bug it
16:03:44 efried All evidence to the contrary, I'm anti-process. I just want to get shit done.
16:04:07 efried so whatever moves the ball
16:04:24 melwitt wfm
16:07:03 bauzas efried: the only problem with any negociation on what's reasonable and what's not depends on the mandate people give you
16:07:41 bauzas efried: and I'm super afraid of us trying to decide priorities based on biaised arguments
16:07:49 efried what do you mean, mandate?
16:07:53 efried and what people?
16:08:11 efried and yes, I agree, it's tough to coordinate priorities
16:08:34 bauzas efried: I think I mixed two things
16:08:40 efried bauzas: but it's a fact that we approve more than we can hope to accomplish
16:09:07 bauzas you were mentioning the stable rules with melwitt's BP, I was thinking of the new spec process with the Direction field
16:09:39 efried and IMO it's better to cut things off, even if it's completely arbitrary (like a hard number, picked at random) than to just meander along and have no idea at the start of the release what's got a chance of merging by the end of the release.
16:09:56 efried that's what's been motivating me from day one.
16:10:02 bauzas efried: you'd probably be surprised if I was telling you I don't see a problem of having more things approved than we can't accomplish
16:10:32 efried I wouldn't say I'm surprised. The fact that nobody seems to mind is why we are where we are.
16:11:03 melwitt as a person trying to get my things done, I'd rather have some chance than no chance, but that's just MHO
16:11:22 bauzas right
16:11:42 bauzas and having some way to help contributors to understand the dynamics improve the situation
16:11:48 bauzas improves*
16:11:51 efried Mine can't be the only downstream that yells at me because "what do you mean it didn't get reviewed? The blueprint was approved!"
16:12:13 sean-k-mooney no but that has always been a thing
16:12:30 efried which is a perfect non-argument for continuing to allow it.
16:12:38 bauzas efried: that's one of the reasons why I don't want our upstream process with specs be an OKR for my management
16:12:50 efried okr?
16:12:57 dansmith efried: there are more reasons for things not getting reviewed than bandwidth or over-committing
16:12:58 bauzas objective key result
16:13:17 bauzas I mean, I don't wanna brag because my spec is approved
16:13:19 efried dansmith: understood and acknowledged in the ML Thread of Doom.
16:13:43 sean-k-mooney well my point was the bottel neck has never been writing the code. it has alwasy been reviewing it. we can reduce the scope for new feature but i know that that leads to less in vestment in openstck
16:13:55 bauzas if I were bragging, that would be because I feel we got a consensus on the design we gonna achieve for the thing I wanna implement
16:14:10 bauzas but certainly not implying that my stuff is done
16:15:07 bauzas anyway, I need to call it a day
16:15:25 bauzas things change, people become parents of kids who grown up and have social activities
16:15:30 bauzas grow*
16:15:52 bauzas and since stupidely kids under 8 can't drive, I need to AWOL
16:16:47 sean-k-mooney bauzas: dont sell your kids short. have you given the opertuity to try. what could possibly go wrong
16:16:52 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Delete source allocations in move_allocations if target no longer exists https://review.opendev.org/689049
16:20:16 mriedem a wild idea: more cores should do more reviews
16:20:19 mriedem *gasp*
16:20:48 mriedem https://www.stackalytics.com/report/contribution/nova/120
16:20:51 mriedem who is <1 review per day on that list?
16:22:47 efried 1/3 of the core team.
16:22:59 mriedem right,
16:23:11 mriedem so if you're a core below that threshold, stop complaining
16:23:29 efried to be fair, I don't see those cores complaining.
16:23:39 efried Actually, I think I'm the only one complaining.
16:23:44 mriedem i see bauzas and melwitt complaining above
16:24:00 melwitt my comment was not intended as a complaint
16:25:04 efried fwiw I saw both as stating reasons for preferring the status quo wrt approving more than we can hope to review.
16:25:46 dansmith yeah, that was my understanding as well
16:26:12 dansmith both melwitt and bauzas have been around since we've tried many similar schemes in the past too
16:26:13 dansmith as have I and mriedem
16:26:47 melwitt I've not argued or voted on any of the new process things because I am in a difficult spot these days with upstream review time. I said one sentence from the perspective of being a contributor. I didn't want anyone to see it as complaining from me
16:32:45 bauzas folks, I was on and off last cycles, and I promised too much so now I'm done with this
16:32:59 bauzas what I just want is helping others as much as I can
16:33:21 efried There was a request for a feature liaison earlier :)
16:33:37 bauzas so, I'm glad mriedem pings me with asking to review stable changes for example, or spec review request
16:33:40 efried http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2019-10-17.log.html#t2019-10-17T04:14:06
16:33:58 bauzas and then, if I can commit myself, I do
16:39:11 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Make '_wait_for_state_change' behave consistently https://review.opendev.org/689180
16:39:12 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Unify '_wait_until_deleted' implementations https://review.opendev.org/689181
16:39:12 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: functional: Make 'ServerTestBase' subclass 'InstanceHelperMixin' https://review.opendev.org/689182
16:45:54 eandersson sean-k-mooney, the issue is oslo messaging related btw, or maybe rabbitmq related.
16:46:31 eandersson I tried to publish and consume to the specific compute queues and every thing worked fine
16:46:40 eandersson I even captured the message last night from the scheduler
16:46:52 eandersson but deleting the queues and restarting the compute, and magically it's working
17:00:45 sean-k-mooney that makes me think of an oslo bug
17:01:25 sean-k-mooney eandersson: https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+bug/1661510
17:01:25 openstack Launchpad bug 1661510 in oslo.messaging "topic_send may loss messages if the queue not exists" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Gabriele Santomaggio (gsantomaggio)
17:01:37 sean-k-mooney i think that the one im thinking of
17:05:50 sean-k-mooney melwitt: do you rembere this oslo chage that intoduce the mandatory flag for rabbitmq
17:05:52 sean-k-mooney https://review.opendev.org/#/c/660373/
17:06:05 melwitt a little bit, yeah
17:06:09 sean-k-mooney melwitt: do you recal if we ever started using it in nova
17:06:18 melwitt not that I know of
17:06:59 sean-k-mooney i would guess the nova bug for lossing message is still open
17:07:11 sean-k-mooney its possible that is what eandersson hit
17:10:07 melwitt I don't recall a nova bug for this one
17:10:18 melwitt in lp
17:10:58 sean-k-mooney i think there was one but my seach foo is failing
17:11:10 sean-k-mooney is there a way to search for bugs you commented on?
17:12:01 sean-k-mooney oh there is
17:12:21 melwitt here's the IRC convo about it from the same day we commented on the oslo.messaging review http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2019-06-06.log.html#t2019-06-06T22:47:09
17:13:04 sean-k-mooney oh thats clever i would not have thought of that. i rememerned it was mnaser that hit it
17:15:13 melwitt rest of the convo is here and I don't see any nova lp bug mentioned other than an old one that got no additional info on it
17:15:15 melwitt http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2019-06-07.log.html
17:15:19 sean-k-mooney ok so there wasnt a specifc nova bug but there were 3 related bugs
17:15:23 sean-k-mooney https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1794706
17:15:23 openstack Launchpad bug 1794706 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "The instance left stuck when oslo.messaging raised MessageDeliveryFailure exception" [Undecided,Expired]
17:15:27 sean-k-mooney https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+bug/1437955
17:15:27 openstack Launchpad bug 1437955 in oslo.messaging "RPC calls and responses do not use the mandatory flag (AMQP)" [Wishlist,Confirmed] - Assigned to Gabriele Santomaggio (gsantomaggio)
17:15:31 melwitt yeah
17:15:32 sean-k-mooney https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+bug/1661510
17:15:32 openstack Launchpad bug 1661510 in oslo.messaging "topic_send may loss messages if the queue not exists" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Gabriele Santomaggio (gsantomaggio)

Earlier   Later