Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2023-01-24
16:03:16 bauzas fine ?
16:03:28 bauzas dansmith's series is on the fly
16:03:36 gibi fine
16:03:58 bauzas #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/870974 skipping now the failing test
16:04:32 bauzas #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/871000 proposal for fixing the test issue
16:04:45 bauzas dansmith: can I review it ? looks so
16:05:12 dansmith bauzas: you can review whatever you want :)
16:05:17 bauzas excellenbt
16:05:20 dansmith but yeah need gmann and kopecmartin to hit that I think
16:05:31 bauzas yup, can't +2 tempest
16:05:38 dansmith oh,
16:05:46 dansmith I need to unskip so he can see, I'll do that after this
16:06:00 bauzas ok, I can hold then
16:06:06 bauzas moving on
16:07:25 bauzas #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New 26 new untriaged bugs (-1 since the last meeting)
16:07:36 bauzas thanks gibi for the triage, any bug you wanted to raise ?
16:07:56 gibi bauzas: I triaged ~5 bugs, nothing serious popped up
16:08:00 bauzas cool
16:08:40 bauzas I think we can easily put the number down when I look at the open ones
16:09:08 bauzas gibi: no worries
16:09:20 bauzas easy transition :
16:09:22 bauzas #info Add yourself in the team bug roster if you want to help https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-bug-triage-roster
16:09:30 bauzas melwitt: are you around ?
16:09:34 bauzas she's the next in the roster
16:10:02 bauzas looks not
16:10:11 bauzas no worries, I'll try to reach her later
16:10:27 bauzas #topic Gate status
16:10:33 bauzas #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure Nova gate bugs
16:10:45 bauzas so the gate is still a bit funky
16:10:49 dansmith yeah
16:10:57 dansmith lots of sporadic fails still
16:11:05 bauzas https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2002782 needs help
16:11:36 bauzas I'll try to add more logs in some DNM to try to see whether we have more explanations
16:11:50 opendevreview Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui proposed openstack/nova master: api: extend evacuate instance to support target state https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858384
16:12:27 bauzas anything people wanna discuss about it ?
16:12:39 gibi I have no extra input to it
16:12:54 bauzas gibi: I've seen you updated the bug report, thanks
16:12:58 gibi no worries
16:13:03 gibi that was part of my triage round
16:13:22 bauzas I just triaged it to Confirmed/High fwiw
16:13:53 gibi ack
16:14:01 gibi I did not want to triage my one bug
16:14:04 Uggla o/
16:14:06 bauzas https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?job_name=nova-tox-functional&job_name=nova-tox-functional-py310&project=openstack%2Fnova&skip=0
16:14:13 bauzas this is wedgy
16:14:29 bauzas but at least the gate isn't hold
16:14:49 bauzas (assuming we have true positives in that list)
16:15:10 gibi filtering that to the gate pipeline is a bit better
16:15:27 bauzas true, it avoids the true positives
16:15:29 gibi but that does not show patches that are good but fail on check
16:15:36 gibi so meh
16:15:54 bauzas ideally, we should filter on the right exception :)
16:16:09 bauzas hence not with zuul :)
16:16:17 bauzas but meh, moving on
16:16:18 gibi yeah yeah
16:16:19 gibi :)
16:16:28 bauzas hear hear
16:16:49 bauzas all periodic jobs turn green this week \o/
16:16:50 bauzas https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly
16:17:00 bauzas #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly Nova&Placement periodic jobs status
16:17:15 bauzas #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag.
16:17:23 bauzas and as a reminder
16:17:28 bauzas #info STOP DOING BLIND RECHECKS aka. 'recheck' https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/testing.html#how-to-handle-test-failures
16:17:49 bauzas I haven't looked at the percentage number of blind rechecks since last year
16:18:06 bauzas but hopefully, should be super small given I say it literally everyweek, eh ?
16:18:26 gibi I did 0 blind one an a ton of proper one :)
16:18:39 bauzas :)
16:18:43 gibi so at least the statistic will be nice :)
16:18:49 sean-k-mooney maybe
16:18:58 sean-k-mooney you put the messasge on the next line a few times
16:19:05 sean-k-mooney not sure if the script takes that into account
16:19:16 sean-k-mooney you did provide a reason in all the ones i saw
16:19:33 bauzas moving on
16:19:39 bauzas #topic Release Planning
16:19:47 gibi sean-k-mooney: good point, the issue is we have multiple failed jon in a single run :)
16:19:50 bauzas #link https://releases.openstack.org/antelope/schedule.html
16:19:58 bauzas #info Antelope-3 is in 3 weeks
16:20:03 bauzas #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/antelope All accepted blueprints for 2023.1
16:20:14 bauzas use this loudly ^
16:20:47 bauzas as a reminder, not all blueprints have specs, so this is the single source of truth for the featurefreeze
16:21:03 bauzas and I have a question
16:21:29 bauzas should I somehow put something explicit against blueprints that have API impact (ie. a microversion support) ?
16:21:44 bauzas in order to ease people's thoughts on what to review
16:22:06 bauzas my proposal would be to use the Priority flag which is honestly not in use today
16:22:19 bauzas I can't add tags on a blueprint
16:22:21 sean-k-mooney i think we have 3 with api changes
16:22:31 sean-k-mooney im not sure we should nessisarly priortiese them by default
16:22:39 sean-k-mooney but we could
16:22:56 sean-k-mooney too basd we cant add a generic tags filed in that view
16:22:56 bauzas technically the priority flag would just be a 'flag' for saying this is a api change
16:23:01 sean-k-mooney that is what i would prefer honestly
16:23:48 bauzas I can modify the blueprint name
16:23:51 sean-k-mooney i would perhaps just not track this in launchpad
16:23:59 bauzas by adding some [api] prefix
16:24:05 bauzas if that helps
16:24:11 sean-k-mooney that will break the specs
16:24:19 sean-k-mooney what is show there is the name that is used in the url
16:24:21 bauzas I don't think so
16:24:22 sean-k-mooney not the title
16:24:41 sean-k-mooney we have a tox target

Earlier   Later