| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-12-12 | |||
| 16:13:47 | bauzas | I updated the etherpad | |
| 16:14:18 | bauzas | #info please use and reuse this etherpad by looking at both the specs and the bugfixes | |
| 16:14:39 | sean-k-mooney | do we want to add a fixed/merged section in that | |
| 16:14:49 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: we have it | |
| 16:14:55 | bauzas | but not for the bugfixes | |
| 16:14:58 | bauzas | I can add it | |
| 16:15:10 | sean-k-mooney | ya we have feature compelte | |
| 16:15:33 | sean-k-mooney | basically it might be a nice refernce for the prolog or release summary | |
| 16:15:50 | bauzas | yes | |
| 16:16:31 | bauzas | anyway, moving on | |
| 16:16:37 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:16:46 | bauzas | elodilles_pto: oh, he's on PTO | |
| 16:16:58 | bauzas | #info stable gates don't seem blocked | |
| 16:17:02 | bauzas | #info stable release patches still open for review: https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/releases+is:open+intopic:nova | |
| 16:17:13 | bauzas | #info yoga is going to be unmaintained, so final stable/yoga release should happen ASAP - https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-yoga-eom | |
| 16:17:25 | bauzas | also, I'll add my own point | |
| 16:18:22 | bauzas | #link Yoga EOL change https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/903278 | |
| 16:19:03 | bauzas | folks, if you want to wait to merge the EOL change until some change, please tell it above ^ | |
| 16:19:16 | bauzas | for me, I already +1d this EOL change | |
| 16:19:38 | bauzas | oh shit | |
| 16:19:39 | JayF | I'll note that's the Ussuri EOL change if you wanna fix the minutes | |
| 16:19:40 | bauzas | #undo | |
| 16:19:40 | opendevmeet | Removing item from minutes: #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/903278 | |
| 16:19:47 | JayF | jinx :) | |
| 16:19:56 | bauzas | #link *Ussuri* EOL change https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/903278 | |
| 16:20:08 | bauzas | voila | |
| 16:20:20 | bauzas | for Yoga, that's for EM | |
| 16:20:33 | bauzas | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:20:42 | bauzas | that's it I guess for the stable topic | |
| 16:20:56 | bauzas | anything else for stable branches ? | |
| 16:21:03 | sean-k-mooney | one thing | |
| 16:21:12 | sean-k-mooney | dependign on how the new images work on master | |
| 16:21:29 | sean-k-mooney | we may want to consider backporting those changes to stabel branches if we see | |
| 16:21:33 | sean-k-mooney | kernel panics there | |
| 16:21:45 | sean-k-mooney | so we should revisit this topic in a few weeks | |
| 16:21:52 | sean-k-mooney | nothing to do now | |
| 16:22:12 | bauzas | we should wait a bit until we backport them | |
| 16:22:14 | bauzas | but sure | |
| 16:22:24 | bauzas | looks to me the gate is better by now | |
| 16:23:06 | bauzas | ok, then moving to the next topic | |
| 16:23:11 | bauzas | #topic vmwareapi 3rd-party CI efforts Highlights | |
| 16:23:23 | fwiesel | #Info Fully working devstack in lab environment manually set up. Now working on automatic setup / teardown for CI | |
| 16:23:27 | bauzas | fwiesel: grandchild: anything you want to tell ? | |
| 16:23:41 | bauzas | fwiesel: ++ | |
| 16:23:44 | bauzas | thanks ! | |
| 16:23:49 | fwiesel | So, "fully working" meaning, we can spin up an instance and it has network, etc..., but.... | |
| 16:23:56 | fwiesel | #Info Initial test runs show vmwareapi is broken (only boot from volume works, not nova boot), bugfixes will come after working CI | |
| 16:24:07 | bauzas | ahah | |
| 16:24:08 | fwiesel | We cannot simply boot from an image | |
| 16:24:21 | bauzas | so that's why we need a 3rd party CI :)Ã | |
| 16:24:21 | bauzas | so that's why we need a 3rd party CI :)à | |
| 16:24:32 | bauzas | looks like we regressed during some time | |
| 16:24:49 | fwiesel | So probably the CI needs to be non-voting in the beginning, I assume | |
| 16:24:55 | bauzas | fwiesel: will you be able to provide some bugfixes ? have you found the root cause ? | |
| 16:25:06 | bauzas | fwiesel: oh yeah, definitely | |
| 16:25:24 | bauzas | we'll run the job as non-voting first | |
| 16:25:27 | fwiesel | bauzas: I haven't looked at the root cause yet, as I thought a working CI has priority. Then we tackle the bugs one by one. | |
| 16:25:35 | bauzas | fwiesel: cool, no worries | |
| 16:25:41 | sean-k-mooney | fwiesel: third party ci cannot be voting | |
| 16:25:51 | bauzas | fwiesel: in case you need help, we can discuss those in your topic next weeks | |
| 16:25:53 | fwiesel | bauzas: But yes, we will be able to provide the bug fixes. It should be not terribly difficult | |
| 16:25:55 | sean-k-mooney | you can leave code review +1 or -1 | |
| 16:26:04 | sean-k-mooney | but never verifed +1 or -1 | |
| 16:26:19 | sean-k-mooney | or at least in a way that will prevent a patch merging | |
| 16:26:22 | fwiesel | sean-k-mooney: Ah, thanks for the explanation. Then I got the terminology wrong. | |
| 16:26:32 | sean-k-mooney | no worries | |
| 16:26:39 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I think we had 3rd-party CI jobs voting before ? (with zuul 2) | |
| 16:26:45 | sean-k-mooney | no | |
| 16:26:47 | sean-k-mooney | never | |
| 16:27:02 | sean-k-mooney | we disucssed it in the past and said that was not ok | |
| 16:27:10 | sean-k-mooney | as we cant have the gate blocked by a third party ci | |
| 16:27:39 | sean-k-mooney | if we are revieing a vmware patch and it breaks the vmware ci | |
| 16:27:44 | fwiesel | I meant, it probably shouldn't even leave a -1 in the beginning | |
| 16:27:44 | sean-k-mooney | we are very unlikely to merge it | |
| 16:27:52 | sean-k-mooney | but htat was left to cores to judge | |
| 16:27:59 | clarkb | you can haev a third party CI -1 and +1 without blocking anything. Only -2 blocks | |
| 16:28:00 | bauzas | okay, maybe this was in 2015 or earlier, but IIRC we had a job that was testing the DB time when upgrading and it was a 3rd-party CI | |
| 16:28:18 | sean-k-mooney | clarkb: we can yes | |
| 16:28:28 | sean-k-mooney | since gate only looks form verified form zuul | |
| 16:28:30 | bauzas | but maybe it never voted, can't exactly remember the details | |
| 16:29:02 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: as far as i am aware we have never had third party voting ci and | |
| 16:29:16 | sean-k-mooney | i am not sure i want to change that in the future | |
| 16:29:16 | bauzas | anyway, this is not a problem | |
| 16:29:29 | sean-k-mooney | sure we just need to see the logs and if it passed or failed | |
| 16:29:51 | bauzas | let's see what fwiesel and grandchild can do with their CI and what they can provide for regression bugfixes | |
| 16:30:15 | fwiesel | That's from my side. Any questions? | |
| 16:30:15 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:30:24 | sean-k-mooney | fwiesel: just one thing | |
| 16:30:28 | bauzas | fwiw, I'm okay with verifying some link every week during our meeting about how many job runs failed | |
| 16:30:31 | sean-k-mooney | you said local images dont work | |
| 16:30:39 | sean-k-mooney | did you make sure to use vmdks | |
| 16:30:42 | sean-k-mooney | instead of qcow | |
| 16:30:46 | bauzas | so even if we don't make them voting, we could continue to check those jobs continue to work | |
| 16:31:08 | fwiesel | sean-k-mooney: Sure, we only run with vmdks. | |
| 16:31:25 | sean-k-mooney | ok i was wondering if it was a simple format issue | |
| 16:31:35 | sean-k-mooney | feel free to file a bug with details when you have time | |
| 16:31:49 | bauzas | fwiesel: do you know we changed the VDMK types ? | |
| 16:32:08 | sean-k-mooney | o we blocked one of the times right | |
| 16:32:15 | bauzas | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1996188 for the context | |
| 16:32:24 | fwiesel | bauzas: No, I don't. Thanks for the info | |