| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-01-17 | |||
| 16:29:19 | sean-k-mooney | just somethign to keep in mind | |
| 16:29:20 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: before going that road, lemme try to bisect the faulty tests | |
| 16:29:25 | dansmith | I've seen it both waysm | |
| 16:29:26 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:29:32 | dansmith | 3.10 passing with 3.8 failing and the other way | |
| 16:29:39 | dansmith | so I don't think disabling one gets us much | |
| 16:29:41 | sean-k-mooney | ok then its jsut flaky | |
| 16:29:50 | bauzas | lovely | |
| 16:29:53 | bauzas | moving on | |
| 16:29:59 | bauzas | we have some agenda today | |
| 16:30:09 | bauzas | #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly Nova&Placement periodic jobs status | |
| 16:30:14 | bauzas | that's fun | |
| 16:30:34 | bauzas | despite https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/866049 was merged, we still have the centos9-fips job timeouting | |
| 16:30:40 | bauzas | so I looked at the job def | |
| 16:30:57 | bauzas | and looks to me it no longer depends on the job I added extra timeout :) | |
| 16:31:22 | bauzas | so basically the patch that took 2 months to get landed is basically useless for our pipeline | |
| 16:31:26 | bauzas | funny, as I said | |
| 16:31:41 | gmann | I think we had progress on running fips testing on ubuntu but need to check if we have job ready. that can replace c9-fips jobs | |
| 16:31:48 | bauzas | so I'll just add the extra timeout on our local job definition | |
| 16:32:00 | opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Detect host renames and abort startup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/863920 | |
| 16:32:10 | bauzas | gmann: that's good to hear | |
| 16:32:29 | gmann | not merged yet #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/867112 | |
| 16:32:33 | bauzas | gmann: we could put fips in check pipeline then | |
| 16:32:47 | gmann | yeah that is plan once we have ubuntu based job | |
| 16:32:55 | bauzas | gmann: as a reminder, given centos9s, fips is on periodic pipeline | |
| 16:33:04 | gmann | yeah | |
| 16:33:08 | bauzas | anyway, this time it should be quickier | |
| 16:33:17 | bauzas | I'll just update our .zuul.yaml | |
| 16:33:36 | bauzas | oh wait | |
| 16:34:10 | bauzas | https://zuul.openstack.org/job/tempest-integrated-compute-centos-9-stream is actually defined in tempest | |
| 16:34:30 | bauzas | so I don't get why we don't benefit from the extra timeout | |
| 16:34:39 | gmann | yeah, we will prepare the tempest job and then add in project side gate | |
| 16:34:44 | sean-k-mooney | the job definition is yes | |
| 16:35:14 | bauzas | anyway, I don't want us to spill too much time about it | |
| 16:35:18 | gmann | not sure on timeout. c9s has been flasky for fips always | |
| 16:35:20 | bauzas | let's move on | |
| 16:35:26 | gmann | yes | |
| 16:35:30 | bauzas | #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag. | |
| 16:35:35 | bauzas | #info STOP DOING BLIND RECHECKS aka. 'recheck' https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/testing.html#how-to-handle-test-failures | |
| 16:35:39 | bauzas | #topic Release Planning | |
| 16:35:44 | bauzas | #link https://releases.openstack.org/antelope/schedule.html | |
| 16:35:49 | bauzas | #info Antelope-3 is in 4 weeks | |
| 16:35:51 | bauzas | tick tack | |
| 16:35:57 | bauzas | #info 17 Accepted blueprints for 2023.1 Antelope | |
| 16:36:04 | bauzas | which is the same amount than yoga | |
| 16:36:16 | bauzas | this is a large number given our team | |
| 16:36:42 | bauzas | given this, I'll create an etherpad for tracking each of them | |
| 16:36:44 | sean-k-mooney | there are 3 i expect to complete this week possibely more | |
| 16:36:51 | sean-k-mooney | dependign on review bandwith | |
| 16:36:56 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: me too, but that still requires us some effort | |
| 16:37:24 | sean-k-mooney | i am a little worried for soem of them but hopeful we will land the majoriy of them | |
| 16:37:32 | bauzas | I mean, I know me, I'll need to put my review energy on the right way and an etherpad will help me to direct my energy productively | |
| 16:37:45 | sean-k-mooney | i dobth it will be too much over half | |
| 16:37:48 | bauzas | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/antelope | |
| 16:38:02 | bauzas | you can find the list of those blueprints there ^ | |
| 16:38:28 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:38:34 | bauzas | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+(project:openstack/nova+OR+project:openstack/placement+OR+project:openstack/os-traits+OR+project:openstack/os-resource-classes+OR+project:openstack/os-vif+OR+project:openstack/python-novaclient+OR+project:openstack/osc-placement)+(label:Review-Priority%252B1+OR+label:Review-Priority%252B2) | |
| 16:38:40 | bauzas | #info As a reminder, cores eager to review changes can +1 to indicate their interest, +2 for committing to the review | |
| 16:39:18 | bauzas | nothing to mention here | |
| 16:39:23 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:39:27 | bauzas | elodilles: floor is yours | |
| 16:39:38 | elodilles | #info stable branches don't seem to be blocked, but patches mostly need rechecks | |
| 16:39:47 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:39:54 | elodilles | and last but not least: Xena will transition to Extended Maintenance after the release of 2023.1 Antelope | |
| 16:40:00 | elodilles | so to prepare for that: | |
| 16:40:08 | elodilles | #info release patches were generated for *stable/xena* : https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:xena-stable+reviewer:sbauza%2540redhat.com | |
| 16:40:13 | sean-k-mooney | the release team proposed doign a release of several repos for xena. do we want ot wait for the tox pin to be merged | |
| 16:40:34 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: which one do you mean? | |
| 16:40:45 | sean-k-mooney | the ones you were linking | |
| 16:40:46 | elodilles | (and that was all from me about stable branches) | |
| 16:40:59 | gmann | tox pin is merged for stable branches. it is done at central place in openstck-zuul-jobs repo | |
| 16:41:02 | bauzas | that's fun, stable branches are more stable than master :) | |
| 16:41:03 | sean-k-mooney | so we dont have the pin to tox<4 on xena yet | |
| 16:41:13 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: oh ok | |
| 16:41:22 | sean-k-mooney | i tought we needed to do it in the tox.ini too | |
| 16:41:28 | sean-k-mooney | so that it worked if you run tox loclaly | |
| 16:41:31 | gmann | let me check if osc-placement and python client is merged or not | |
| 16:41:40 | elodilles | no, the workaround was merged last week, as gmann says | |
| 16:41:51 | sean-k-mooney | will that work outside ci | |
| 16:42:17 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure hwo you can fix it centrally unless we did it in upper-constraits? | |
| 16:42:21 | gmann | yeah tox one is merged but this placement functional test this is not yet #link https://review.opendev.org/q/I4e3e5732411639054baaa9211a29e2e2c8210ac0 | |
| 16:42:32 | gmann | bauzas: sean-k-mooney elodilles ^^ | |
| 16:42:41 | elodilles | oh, i missed that somehow | |
| 16:42:45 | elodilles | will review ASAP | |
| 16:42:49 | bauzas | ack | |
| 16:42:51 | elodilles | sorry for that | |
| 16:42:52 | bauzas | tab open | |
| 16:43:07 | bauzas | I'll do my homework after the meeting | |
| 16:43:15 | sean-k-mooney | so my question still is not really answered | |
| 16:43:17 | elodilles | (the stable ones o:)) | |
| 16:43:19 | gmann | thanks | |
| 16:43:42 | sean-k-mooney | where is tox pinned in https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/xena/tox.ini | |
| 16:43:44 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: in that case we can wait until the xena one merges :) | |
| 16:43:47 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: how to cap tox under 3 ? | |
| 16:43:58 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: only for CI. you mean to pin it in tox.ini itself ? | |
| 16:44:01 | bauzas | under 4, I mean | |
| 16:44:24 | sean-k-mooney | yes so that developers can also run tox locally to test backports | |
| 16:44:45 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: if we want to fix it for local run to make sure we do not run it with tox4 then yes we need to pin in tox.ini also but that can be done if we really need | |
| 16:44:47 | sean-k-mooney | i was asking should we do that before doing the final release for extended mainance | |
| 16:45:33 | elodilles | hmmm. good question. | |