| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-06-21 | |||
| 16:35:11 | gibi | as they run eventlets | |
| 16:35:26 | gibi | and sometimes depends on extrenal things like sysfs :) | |
| 16:35:44 | gibi | still I think we should backport func test infra | |
| 16:36:27 | sean-k-mooney | its the integrated_helpers that are most useful | |
| 16:37:05 | artom | gibi, I feel like sysfs should be poisoned in func tests... | |
| 16:37:15 | gibi | artom: I have a patch | |
| 16:37:26 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/844627 | |
| 16:37:40 | sean-k-mooney | artom: for the most part its mocked already modulo bugs | |
| 16:37:56 | sean-k-mooney | but yes the poison is also good to do | |
| 16:38:31 | gibi | does anyone here strongly disagree to backport func test infra? | |
| 16:38:36 | elodilles | also note, i'm not completely against backporting func test refactors, but i still think it is best to keep it in a low level and we should not backport massive refactors :/ | |
| 16:39:12 | gibi | elodilles: it is a tradeoff, either you take the risk by backporting the refactor or take the risk when you backport a fix that needs to be changed due to the missing refactor | |
| 16:39:33 | gibi | artom: 3 lines! come on! :) | |
| 16:39:33 | sean-k-mooney | well or we drop the functest on backport | |
| 16:39:43 | elodilles | if a refactor breaks something then we don't have the bandwidth to keep it maintained i think. stable should be stable :( | |
| 16:39:45 | artom | The one on top is a bit bigger ^_^ | |
| 16:39:46 | gibi | I strongly against droping the func test on backport | |
| 16:39:56 | artom | elodilles, so that was the crux of my argument | |
| 16:40:09 | artom | Red Hat *will* maintain stable/train for literally years, we have no choice | |
| 16:40:28 | sean-k-mooney | well at least 2.5 more | |
| 16:40:29 | artom | But we don't want to inflict pain on anyone maintaining older than stable/train | |
| 16:40:38 | artom | So: do those folks... well, exist? :) | |
| 16:41:01 | artom | At Summit, what release did operators say they were on? | |
| 16:41:05 | sean-k-mooney | technially we still maintain queens downstream too for a while more | |
| 16:41:42 | sean-k-mooney | but i would prefer to have the backports of the func infra as that makes backporting simpelr in the long run | |
| 16:41:45 | gibi | artom: there were no specifics other than what is in the etherpad | |
| 16:42:01 | artom | So only "train or older" with no info if it's train... or older :( | |
| 16:42:43 | elodilles | should have been added 'train' + 'stein and older' :D | |
| 16:43:24 | artom | Yeah :S | |
| 16:44:34 | artom | So compared to stable/train, there are 4 patches last updated this year, compared to train's ~50 | |
| 16:44:53 | elodilles | why not https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/stein ? | |
| 16:45:04 | artom | Because I suck at alphabet :P | |
| 16:45:09 | elodilles | o:) | |
| 16:45:36 | artom | Seems to be mostly Felix and Vlad Gusev... | |
| 16:45:50 | artom | But similar level of involvement drop-off | |
| 16:46:21 | elodilles | a bit more patch but without reviews, yes :/ | |
| 16:46:24 | gibi | so what if we say, func infra backport are OK to stable/train as there are maintainers there but not further backwards | |
| 16:46:44 | gibi | due to lack of maintainers | |
| 16:47:04 | elodilles | gibi: that is good for RH but not really helps to encourage backporting for older branches | |
| 16:47:26 | sean-k-mooney | well even train is in em now right | |
| 16:47:34 | artom | I think elodilles's point is that if we rewrite the fixes to not need func test refactors *before* train, it helps maintainers of older branches, such as they are | |
| 16:47:48 | sean-k-mooney | given the peopel we have its hard to keep maintianing older branches | |
| 16:47:57 | keerthi | can some one help on review this https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/define-max-volume-limit-at-flavor ? | |
| 16:47:58 | sean-k-mooney | train is 5 releases old currently | |
| 16:48:03 | artom | If we backport func test refactors, we're offloading that rewriting work onto whoever is still working with rocky and older | |
| 16:48:14 | gibi | keerthi: we are in a meeting right now | |
| 16:49:04 | artom | OTOH, why would it be wrong of facilitating the work of the majority? | |
| 16:49:10 | gibi | so we say no func test backport as it there is no maintainers but also we say if we dont backport func infra then we dont have maintaniers, this is contradiction now | |
| 16:49:12 | sean-k-mooney | keerthi: we can proably discuss it after the meeting or when we are done with this topic | |
| 16:49:31 | keerthi | sure Sean, I will wait for it | |
| 16:50:23 | elodilles | anyway, i have said my preference, and i'm only one of the stable maintainers o:) | |
| 16:50:52 | gibi | either we don't have stein maintainers and then I don't feel back about not helping them, or we have maintainers and the I would ask them to backport the func refactor from train to stein | |
| 16:51:01 | gibi | s/back/bad/ | |
| 16:51:45 | gibi | and I would help them by backporting the refactor up until train | |
| 16:51:56 | gibi | that would be a win-win | |
| 16:52:00 | artom | gibi, hard to argue with that | |
| 16:52:37 | gibi | elodilles: would you be -1 on a func infra backport to stable/train? | |
| 16:52:46 | gibi | (or even -2?) | |
| 16:53:01 | elodilles | 'func infra'? | |
| 16:53:12 | gibi | functional test infrastructure backport | |
| 16:53:30 | artom | As opposed to infrastructure that's really grooooovey :D | |
| 16:53:31 | gibi | like the one artom linked above | |
| 16:53:54 | elodilles | so you mean zuul jobs change? | |
| 16:54:06 | elodilles | (i've lost in the links :)) | |
| 16:54:11 | artom | No, stuff like https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/791481/1 | |
| 16:54:14 | artom | For example | |
| 16:54:38 | gibi | elodilles: changes that are not adding a bugfix but refactoring the functional test infrastrucutre | |
| 16:54:49 | gibi | like backporting helpers from newer branches | |
| 16:54:51 | artom | I mean, if https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/751364 is allowed... | |
| 16:54:59 | bauzas | sorry, it took longer than expected :( | |
| 16:55:10 | artom | And https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/751363/3 | |
| 16:55:28 | artom | Honestly, with those last 2, we've set the precedent that func test refactors are fair game | |
| 16:55:46 | sean-k-mooney | artom: wasnt the main issue with the backport you did that you skipped ussui by the way | |
| 16:56:01 | artom | sean-k-mooney, that's a different series, and I fixed that | |
| 16:56:07 | sean-k-mooney | oh ok | |
| 16:56:12 | sean-k-mooney | nevermind then | |
| 16:56:24 | gibi | we are running out of time and still had on point on the agenda | |
| 16:56:39 | elodilles | artom: we did backport simple&small func test refactors in the past | |
| 16:57:33 | elodilles | gibi: if we are waiting for my vote: as i said, i'd prefer not, but not against :) | |
| 16:57:50 | elodilles | so no -2 from me | |
| 16:57:57 | gibi | OK, so if you are not blocking such backport then we are done | |
| 16:58:06 | gibi | artom: anything else? | |
| 16:58:13 | bauzas | so, MHO is that we should be picky if needed | |
| 16:58:33 | elodilles | bauzas: +2 | |
| 16:58:34 | bauzas | anyway, time flies | |
| 16:58:53 | gibi | sure still proper review on those patches but not blanket -2 | |
| 16:59:02 | bauzas | my other point can be deferred to next week | |
| 16:59:02 | artom | gibi, nope, I'm coming away from this with the understanding that func test refactors are fair game if they help make the fixes cleaner and easier to backport (and increase confidence in the reproducer test) | |
| 16:59:10 | gibi | ack | |
| 16:59:21 | gibi | moving on then | |
| 16:59:22 | gibi | (bauzas) Opportunities for low-hanging-fruits, anyone ? (only if we have time left) | |
| 16:59:31 | gibi | 40 secs :) | |
| 16:59:32 | bauzas | no time, let's punt to next week | |
| 16:59:36 | gibi | ack | |
| 16:59:46 | gibi | any last minute issue to raise today? | |
| 16:59:50 | bauzas | tl;dr: think about how to help on-off contributors like interns | |
| 17:00:10 | gibi | #endmeeting | |
| 17:00:10 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Jun 21 17:00:10 2022 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:00:10 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2022/nova.2022-06-21-15.59.html | |
| 17:00:10 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2022/nova.2022-06-21-15.59.txt | |