| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-04-18 | |||
| 16:55:40 | dansmith | I think bauzas' concern is about remembering to do the extra reno in 2024.1, right? | |
| 16:55:41 | sean-k-mooney | yes bauzas and i swtiched topic slightly to talke about deprecation/removals in B in general | |
| 16:55:50 | bauzas | dansmith: correct | |
| 16:55:50 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 16:55:57 | bauzas | dansmith: your plan looks good then | |
| 16:56:26 | bauzas | provided we don't forget to mention the deprecation in 2024.1 | |
| 16:56:32 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: well, you seemed to go back to the specific with the "block removing on resolving" | |
| 16:56:43 | sean-k-mooney | well in 2024 we would be annouching that we intend to remvoe it effectivly | |
| 16:56:49 | sean-k-mooney | if that what we decied at that point | |
| 16:57:00 | sean-k-mooney | were as right now we are just saying its untested | |
| 16:57:13 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: dansmith: I apologize, I mixed two problems | |
| 16:57:14 | dansmith | bauzas: to be honest, the removal of it is not that important, IMHO | |
| 16:57:21 | sean-k-mooney | and deprecated but no plan to remove it in any partical release | |
| 16:57:22 | bauzas | don't disagree | |
| 16:57:26 | bauzas | dansmith: ^ | |
| 16:57:29 | dansmith | bauzas: saying it's deprecated is a lot more important.. we can remove it when it becomes an _actual_ problem | |
| 16:57:35 | bauzas | true | |
| 16:57:46 | bauzas | ok, looks like we're settled then | |
| 16:57:48 | dansmith | which, if it's been long enough, doesn't matter when we do it | |
| 16:57:51 | bauzas | I can vote | |
| 16:59:05 | sean-k-mooney | anyway i need to go to another meeting now | |
| 16:59:25 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: as an fyi i plan to submit the patch to remove the AZ filter next week when i have time to write it | |
| 16:59:44 | bauzas | ack | |
| 17:00:08 | sean-k-mooney | it was ment to be done like in xena or yoga. i have a version somewhere but im jsut going to do it from scratch | |
| 17:01:58 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: you know that by merging this without having a tooling in place, we basically leave myself to be responsible of the release note forward-porting, right? :) | |
| 17:02:14 | bauzas | (just saying this here as well, as a side discussion occurs somewhere else) | |
| 17:09:46 | bauzas | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/863910 is sent to the gate | |
| 17:12:15 | dansmith | so, | |
| 17:12:30 | dansmith | marking it as experimental back then made more sense than I think it does now | |
| 17:12:38 | dansmith | (I realize I'm +2 on that) | |
| 17:13:14 | dansmith | I think we do need to mark it as actually deprecated to be clean here, because we know it has no maintenance horizon, the dependent library is abandoned and in danger, etc | |
| 17:18:18 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: we are technially doing both | |
| 17:18:27 | sean-k-mooney | its deprecated in the relesae notes | |
| 17:18:41 | dansmith | no it's not | |
| 17:18:42 | sean-k-mooney | but we use experimantal in the logs becasue we did not want to call it deprecated for reasons | |
| 17:18:52 | dansmith | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/863910/1/releasenotes/notes/hyperv-experimental-antelope-372e18a05cafc295.yaml | |
| 17:18:59 | dansmith | it says "may be removed" but no | |
| 17:19:03 | dansmith | not "deprecated" | |
| 17:19:08 | sean-k-mooney | deprecations: | |
| 17:19:15 | sean-k-mooney | its in the deprecation section | |
| 17:19:25 | dansmith | meh | |
| 17:20:25 | dansmith | it's too vague at this point.. we should be saying it's deprecated and will be removed | |
| 17:20:46 | dansmith | the log is probably even more important than the reno | |
| 17:21:24 | dansmith | 2% of deployments are using hyperv...we really should not leave any room for misinterpreting what we know is going to happen | |
| 17:23:12 | sean-k-mooney | ok im fine with refining it but i was ok with the fact it was in the deprecation section to track that it was deprecated. | |
| 17:55:54 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/yoga: Unify placement client singleton implementations https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858997 | |
| 18:17:14 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/yoga: Avoid n-cond startup abort for keystone failures https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/858998 | |
| 19:23:16 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: add hypervisor version weigher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880231 | |
| 19:25:37 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: add hypervisor version weigher https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880231 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2023-04-19 | |||
| 09:09:58 | opendevreview | Jorge San Emeterio proposed openstack/nova master: Have host look for CPU controller of cgroupsv2 location. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873127 | |
| 11:45:40 | opendevreview | Tobias Urdin proposed openstack/nova master: Fix wrong nova-manage command in upgrade check https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880819 | |
| 13:16:16 | auniyal | sean-k-mooney, bauzas, gibi, dansmith, melwitt, artom and other cores can you please have look on these patches https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/release-liaison-PatchesToReview | |
| 13:16:23 | auniyal | some of them are good to merge | |
| 13:26:49 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: hyperv: Mark driver as experimental https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/863910 | |
| 13:36:03 | artom | auniyal, I'm not a core :) | |
| 14:41:12 | opendevreview | Takashi Natsume proposed openstack/nova master: Update contributor guide for 2023.2 Bobcat https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/876447 | |
| 15:07:46 | IPO | Hello All. xena will be on EM soon. Could you please review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/876474 ? | |
| 15:08:36 | IPO | Sorry, this one: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829804 | |
| 15:14:44 | elodilles | IPO: nova has already released its final xena release, and actually the xena-em transition patch is also about to merge. (note that patches can be merged after the transition as well, just upstream releases cannot be done anymore) | |
| 15:36:08 | IPO | I see. Thank you for info. So is there any chance to merge ? | |
| 15:39:51 | IPO | I mean "note that patches can be merged after the transition as well" cover only security patches ? | |
| 15:41:24 | elodilles | IPO: every bug fix can be merged after the Extended Maintenance transition as well - until the branch will be xena-eol tagged (End-of-Life) and deleted | |
| 15:42:40 | IPO | Thanks for comment ! | |
| 15:42:47 | elodilles | no problem | |
| 17:08:42 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: thanks for the review | |
| 17:09:04 | sean-k-mooney | ill fix the docs issues but propably tomorrow im getting a headache so i think ill call it a day | |
| #openstack-nova - 2023-04-20 | |||
| 07:43:43 | lajoskatona | bauzas: Hi, I opened a bug against Neutron/Nova/Tempest to track what we do with tests like the ones under tempest/api/compute/security_groups | |
| 07:44:01 | lajoskatona | bauzas: here's the bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2017023 | |
| 07:44:44 | lajoskatona | bauzas: I also noted kopecmartin to think about it from tempest perspective, and I plan to check what coverage we have in tempest/api/network or tempest/scenario | |
| 07:45:17 | lajoskatona | bauzas: so if you have some free time please check it. | |
| 07:45:31 | bauzas | lajoskatona: ack, I'll take a look | |
| 07:45:38 | lajoskatona | bauzas: thanks | |
| 07:46:33 | bauzas | lajoskatona: fwiw, I'd also like us to sit down in a room during the PTG to see all the failures we have in CI, and see how we can fix that | |
| 07:46:41 | bauzas | like a war room if you prefer | |
| 07:54:12 | lajoskatona | bauzas: I added a line to the Neutron etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/neutron-vancouver-2023#L41 | |
| 07:54:50 | bauzas | oh wow, you already have an etherpad :) | |
| 07:54:51 | lajoskatona | bauzas: I am still not sure if I will be personally there | |
| 07:54:57 | bauzas | I know | |
| 07:55:25 | bauzas | this is a difficult problem | |
| 07:55:36 | bauzas | we will mostly miss the quorum | |
| 07:58:34 | gibi | based on the current state of affairs nova will be far from quorum :/ | |
| 08:10:11 | bauzas | gibi: ship hasn't fully sailed yet, but anyway we'll miss a lot of contributors indeed | |
| 08:46:28 | opendevreview | xielijie proposed openstack/nova master: Correct retry interval during attach volume https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880921 | |
| 11:08:22 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/yoga: Fix rescue volume-based instance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/872118 | |
| 11:58:01 | sean-k-mooney | lajoskatona: im not sure we shoudl remove those tempest test while we still have supprot for them in nova | |
| 11:58:29 | sean-k-mooney | we deprecated there use years ago but since we have never risen our min microversion they are still fuly supported | |
| 11:59:26 | sean-k-mooney | we deprecated the apis in 2.36 as part of the newton release https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/reference/api-microversion-history.html#microversion | |
| 12:06:43 | lajoskatona | sean-k-mooney: ahh, ok, thanks, this is why I added Nova also the the bug to have all parties on the table | |
| 12:07:36 | lajoskatona | sean-k-mooney: so till the mi microversion is not bumped higher that 2.36 we have to keep these proxy APIs and the tests? | |
| 12:07:52 | sean-k-mooney | if i can leverage this as a forcing funciton to actully raise our min microversion then i would be happy to raise it above where those were decpreated and delete the code | |
| 12:08:24 | sean-k-mooney | lajoskatona: yes i think we do because they are still fully supproted and i think horizon might still be using some of them | |
| 12:10:00 | lajoskatona | sean-k-mooney: I see you also commented on the bug, thanks, it will help everybody to see the whole picture | |
| 12:10:24 | sean-k-mooney | i have no partically issue with skiping the nova test by defualt in most jobs | |
| 12:10:32 | sean-k-mooney | but the nova gate still need to test it | |
| 12:12:53 | sean-k-mooney | lajoskatona: we also have proxy apis for cinder and glance that we unfortunetlly still need to test | |
| 12:13:00 | sean-k-mooney | for basically the same reason | |
| 12:15:12 | sean-k-mooney | lajoskatona: im not that familar with horizon but https://github.com/openstack/horizon/commit/9067ae8b0fe6dd57906d0eb5fe31ee96eb021fd4 it looks like they have actully converted to usign neutron instead | |
| 12:15:59 | lajoskatona | sean-k-mooney: anyway I still think it is worth to discuss if we have to test these APIs for all patch, and instead run these tests against a really used API (Neutron in this this case but can be true for Glance or Cinder also) | |
| 12:20:29 | sean-k-mooney | well that is why i suggested not testign them in gates other then nova | |
| 12:20:55 | sean-k-mooney | so neutron cinder and glance coudl perhaps stop testign them but i think nova still needs too | |