| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-11-30 | |||
| 16:08:18 | bauzas | ok, nothing else to tell ? | |
| 16:08:50 | bauzas | #topic Release Planning | |
| 16:09:02 | bauzas | #info Yoga-2 is due Jan 6th#link https://releases.openstack.org/yoga/schedule.html#y-2 | |
| 16:09:05 | bauzas | #undo | |
| 16:09:05 | opendevmeet | Removing item from minutes: #info Yoga-2 is due Jan 6th#link https://releases.openstack.org/yoga/schedule.html#y-2 | |
| 16:09:19 | bauzas | #info Yoga-2 is due Jan 6th | |
| 16:09:21 | bauzas | #link https://releases.openstack.org/yoga/schedule.html#y-2 | |
| 16:09:37 | bauzas | #info Next spec review day to be planned for mid-Dec | |
| 16:09:41 | bauzas | so, | |
| 16:10:08 | bauzas | what do you think about Dec 14th for a new spec review day ? | |
| 16:10:21 | bauzas | the next week, I'll be off | |
| 16:10:23 | sean-k-mooney | +1 for 14th | |
| 16:10:44 | gibi | 14th works for me | |
| 16:10:49 | bauzas | we have a few open specs | |
| 16:10:58 | gibi | I'm off from the 20th | |
| 16:11:11 | bauzas | gibi: maybe like me | |
| 16:11:32 | bauzas | maybe I'll work on the Dec 22th day | |
| 16:11:38 | bauzas | but... | |
| 16:11:57 | bauzas | I'm not sure we would have quorum | |
| 16:12:09 | bauzas | ok, any other thought? | |
| 16:13:03 | bauzas | #agreed Next spec review day will be Tuesday Dec 14th | |
| 16:13:08 | gibi | I will not be around in the week of Yoga-2 | |
| 16:13:19 | bauzas | I'll provide a new ML email | |
| 16:13:20 | gibi | I will be back on the 10th of Jan | |
| 16:13:32 | bauzas | gibi: oh, you're now living in France ? | |
| 16:13:37 | bauzas | :p | |
| 16:14:00 | gibi | I've just checked, no :D | |
| 16:14:21 | bauzas | anyway, no worries | |
| 16:14:37 | bauzas | we will only have the spec deadline for yoga-2 | |
| 16:15:25 | gibi | I have two placement specs to get approved :) | |
| 16:15:31 | bauzas | I've seen them :p | |
| 16:15:50 | bauzas | anyway, moving on | |
| 16:16:08 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:16:16 | bauzas | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+(project:openstack/nova+OR+project:openstack/placement)+label:Review-Priority%252B1 | |
| 16:16:22 | bauzas | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816861 bauzas proposing a documentation change for helping contributors to ask for reviews | |
| 16:16:32 | bauzas | I'm afraid I didn't had time to modify it | |
| 16:16:49 | bauzas | nothing to discuss then for this week | |
| 16:17:05 | bauzas | unless people want to have review priorities ? | |
| 16:17:46 | bauzas | fwiw, my main priority will be unified limits reviews | |
| 16:18:32 | bauzas | OK, next topic | |
| 16:18:39 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:18:48 | bauzas | I'm sitting down, listening to elodilles | |
| 16:18:52 | elodilles | #info stable gates are OK | |
| 16:19:00 | elodilles | stable/xena has ~3 merged bug fixes, maybe we can wait some more bug fix to land before we do a release | |
| 16:19:10 | elodilles | and that's it | |
| 16:20:12 | bauzas | I was triaging a bug related to the compute service delete issue, and I saw we hadn't yet merged https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/802847 | |
| 16:20:55 | bauzas | I'll look at other backports that are fixing bad bugs, and I'll try to review them | |
| 16:21:25 | elodilles | thanks in advance \o/ | |
| 16:22:01 | bauzas | well, no problem | |
| 16:22:08 | bauzas | moving on | |
| 16:22:16 | bauzas | #topic Sub/related team Highlights | |
| 16:22:24 | bauzas | Libvirt :lyarwood ? | |
| 16:22:33 | lyarwood | Nothing from me | |
| 16:22:36 | bauzas | cool | |
| 16:22:43 | bauzas | #topic Open discussion | |
| 16:22:48 | bauzas | (gmann) Specless BP approval request for RBAC community-wide goal | |
| 16:23:02 | bauzas | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-defaults-refresh-2 | |
| 16:23:12 | bauzas | gmann: around ? | |
| 16:23:51 | dansmith | I am, if you have questions | |
| 16:24:09 | bauzas | honestly, I don't think I have any concerns | |
| 16:24:32 | dansmith | I've been working on a patch to get servers back to the place where we want it, | |
| 16:24:33 | bauzas | maybe one about upgrades and what it means for operators that were modifying the policies | |
| 16:24:35 | dansmith | as an example people can work from | |
| 16:24:39 | dansmith | and it's very close | |
| 16:24:51 | bauzas | but this is just changing the defaults | |
| 16:24:54 | dansmith | gmann and johnthetubaguy[m] are mostly happy I think, just working out one more functional thing | |
| 16:25:19 | dansmith | bauzas: well, this is pretty much all about defaults anyway, | |
| 16:25:34 | dansmith | and nobody could really have rolled to the new ones yet anyway, so not an upgrade concern, IMHO | |
| 16:25:46 | dansmith | but the revised plan involves less change when they do upgrade | |
| 16:26:31 | bauzas | dansmith: I guess you're referring to https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/815158/20/goals/proposed/consistent-and-secure-rbac.rst as the revised plan ? | |
| 16:26:40 | dansmith | yep | |
| 16:27:24 | bauzas | ok, | |
| 16:27:45 | bauzas | this plan isn't yet sold but whatever it will be, nothing will really change from nova | |
| 16:28:02 | dansmith | well, things have to change in nova of course, | |
| 16:28:08 | bauzas | so as you said, I don't think there is any upgrade concern then | |
| 16:28:29 | bauzas | nothing will really change from a nova perspective if you prefer | |
| 16:28:37 | dansmith | but mostly just undoing some of the proposed stuff that hasn't been able to be realized yet.. stepping back from some of that stuff that we merged proactively | |
| 16:28:40 | bauzas | things have to change, but upgrades aren't a concern either way | |
| 16:29:00 | dansmith | much less of a concern than what they were, but of the stuff we're keeping, no real change, yeah | |
| 16:29:24 | dansmith | and keystone will go first which will help our upgrade be even less impactful than it was going to be, if we ever got past the big bubble we had going | |
| 16:29:48 | bauzas | to answer the original paperwork question, I think there is no controversy to tell it's a specless BP and we don't to document this as we already have https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/815158/20/goals/proposed/consistent-and-secure-rbac.rst | |
| 16:30:02 | bauzas | we don't need* to | |
| 16:30:13 | dansmith | ++ | |
| 16:30:44 | bauzas | that said, of course this work will need some release notes | |
| 16:30:54 | dansmith | obviously | |
| 16:30:55 | bauzas | to explain the changes to the operators | |
| 16:31:00 | bauzas | ok | |
| 16:31:04 | bauzas | anyone has other concerns N? | |
| 16:31:22 | bauzas | dang, I need to learn typing | |
| 16:31:58 | bauzas | (and that's what happens when you have a french keyboard with ? located near n and requiring shift) | |
| 16:32:08 | bauzas | anyway | |
| 16:32:41 | bauzas | #agreed https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-defaults-refresh-2 accepted as a specless BP as the direction is already explained in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/815158/ | |
| 16:32:50 | bauzas | moving on, last topic | |
| 16:33:12 | bauzas | (ganso) Raising awareness of vif_multiqueue_enabled in flavor work that is ready to be reviewed/merged | |
| 16:33:15 | bauzas | ganso: around ? | |
| 16:33:21 | ganso | o/ | |
| 16:33:34 | bauzas | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/multiqueue-flavor-extra-spec | |
| 16:33:49 | ganso | so as the topic titles says: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp%252Fmultiqueue-flavor-extra-spec%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) | |
| 16:34:14 | ganso | we've discussed 2-3 weeks ago about this and that it could/may be specless, but it was approved to be specless ~6 months ago | |
| 16:34:20 | bauzas | ganso: nothing changed during the implementation phase requiring further discussion ? | |