| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-08-27 | |||
| 16:14:57 | sean-k-mooney | anyway there are two patches to fix the 3.11 issue | |
| 16:15:31 | sean-k-mooney | so the main question is do we quickly fix this for 2024.2 | |
| 16:15:32 | bauzas | we could backport such patches then | |
| 16:15:51 | sean-k-mooney | and then look at removing the shell in 2025.1/2 | |
| 16:16:04 | bauzas | I think we should rather just fix the 3.11 issues | |
| 16:16:12 | sean-k-mooney | actully we can dicussss post 2024.1 at the ptg | |
| 16:16:37 | bauzas | we can write some relnote before we release explaning the status of the CLI if you wan | |
| 16:16:39 | bauzas | want* | |
| 16:16:53 | sean-k-mooney | well the cil is deprecated for removal | |
| 16:17:01 | sean-k-mooney | so unless we are going to set a release there is no point | |
| 16:17:15 | sean-k-mooney | im hoping to deprecate the entire project in 2025.1 | |
| 16:17:18 | bauzas | at a previous PTG, we said we preferred to defer the removal | |
| 16:17:19 | elodilles | with the relmgt hat on, i like the idea of landing the two patch that fixes the gate o:) (thanks sean-k-mooney for bringing this topic up :)) | |
| 16:17:46 | bauzas | there are people continuing to run scrips with the CLI | |
| 16:17:47 | sean-k-mooney | ok then all we need to do is see if we are happy with stephenfin patch for functional | |
| 16:17:55 | sean-k-mooney | and then we can merge one of the two patches for 3.11 | |
| 16:18:05 | sean-k-mooney | and backport those to stable branches | |
| 16:18:07 | sean-k-mooney | if needed | |
| 16:18:17 | bauzas | could you please add all the patches in the release etherpad if they're not there yet ? | |
| 16:18:27 | bauzas | for tracking | |
| 16:18:28 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:18:32 | bauzas | thanks | |
| 16:18:40 | bauzas | do both of the problems have bug reports against them ? | |
| 16:18:50 | sean-k-mooney | yes i think so | |
| 16:18:53 | bauzas | cool | |
| 16:18:59 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: thanks for helping | |
| 16:19:06 | bauzas | dansmith: you had a comment | |
| 16:19:07 | elodilles | yepp, thanks sean-k-mooney \o/ | |
| 16:19:28 | dansmith | bauzas: release-wise, i think it's critical that we get this into 2024.2: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/925025 | |
| 16:19:39 | dansmith | it will reduce the number of releases where we carry the format_inspector stuff, | |
| 16:19:54 | dansmith | and the sooner we get that in the more coverage we'll get before the release | |
| 16:20:02 | bauzas | good point | |
| 16:20:08 | bauzas | I'll add it to the tracker | |
| 16:20:12 | dansmith | just made the oslo release, so we should take advantage of it | |
| 16:20:14 | gibi | I can start my tomorrow on that commit | |
| 16:20:17 | bauzas | ++ | |
| 16:20:24 | dansmith | gibi: thanks | |
| 16:20:29 | bauzas | I can review that patch | |
| 16:20:44 | bauzas | (I actually reviewed the first patch that added the module :) ) | |
| 16:21:01 | dansmith | -1741 +55 | |
| 16:21:04 | dansmith | pretty good stats :) | |
| 16:21:13 | gibi | dansmith: nice work! | |
| 16:21:32 | bauzas | yeah, thanks for having worked on it from the last semester :) | |
| 16:21:40 | dansmith | yeah, I'm sick of it :) | |
| 16:21:57 | bauzas | I don't guess the reason why :-P | |
| 16:22:01 | bauzas | (jk) | |
| 16:22:18 | bauzas | anyway, moving on, I'll review that patch and gibi too | |
| 16:22:52 | bauzas | release-wise too, I'll start adding the procedural patches we usually merge before RC1 | |
| 16:23:06 | bauzas | the rpcapi pins, etc. | |
| 16:23:55 | bauzas | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:24:01 | bauzas | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-dalmatian-status | |
| 16:24:24 | bauzas | I'll start scrubbing that list and identify the series that are impacted by the client freeze and need to be punted | |
| 16:24:29 | bauzas | ++ | |
| 16:24:48 | bauzas | I'll provide comments in the etherpad about what can be reviewed | |
| 16:24:55 | bauzas | classic paperwork | |
| 16:25:08 | bauzas | next topic | |
| 16:25:11 | bauzas | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:25:23 | bauzas | elodilles: happy to listen to you | |
| 16:25:28 | elodilles | #info stable/202*.* gates seem to be OK | |
| 16:25:38 | bauzas | I like that | |
| 16:25:39 | elodilles | and that's all from me about stable :) | |
| 16:26:59 | bauzas | short and nice | |
| 16:27:03 | bauzas | I love that | |
| 16:27:12 | bauzas | #topic vmwareapi 3rd-party CI efforts Highlights | |
| 16:27:14 | fwiesel | #info Fixed regression in neutron driver used in CI. | |
| 16:27:18 | bauzas | \o/ | |
| 16:27:29 | fwiesel | sean-k-mooney: We are back to the two known failures | |
| 16:28:10 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 16:28:18 | sean-k-mooney | i asked a question on the patch about rebuild | |
| 16:28:23 | sean-k-mooney | is that expected to fail | |
| 16:28:28 | sean-k-mooney | i see normal bfv works | |
| 16:28:38 | fwiesel | Yeah, that is its own bug an discussion | |
| 16:28:40 | sean-k-mooney | if there is a followup for the rebuild case i can upgrade to +2 | |
| 16:29:07 | sean-k-mooney | ok upgraded to +2 based on the latest ci results | |
| 16:29:09 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/910627 | |
| 16:29:14 | fwiesel | \o/ | |
| 16:29:27 | fwiesel | That would be then from my side for this week, unless there are questions. | |
| 16:29:34 | sean-k-mooney | im tempeted to +w since other have not reviewd in 6 months | |
| 16:29:36 | bauzas | not from me | |
| 16:29:53 | bauzas | I can review the patch | |
| 16:30:03 | bauzas | CI is green | |
| 16:30:27 | bauzas | and we have some kind of gentlemen's agreement on 'other virt drivers' patches we may not know by heart | |
| 16:30:30 | sean-k-mooney | ok, but general question since cores are not really maintianing the vmware stuff do we want ot require 2 +2s if ci is green and fwiesel's team are the autors of the patch? | |
| 16:30:49 | sean-k-mooney | im stictly talking about chagne that only impact vmware like this | |
| 16:30:51 | bauzas | that's the whole point of running a stable CI | |
| 16:31:03 | dansmith | I still want good review (i.e. two +2s) | |
| 16:31:19 | bauzas | if we can trust the vmware job, then we can get some good regressing insight | |
| 16:31:33 | bauzas | but I second dansmith on not release our two cores approval | |
| 16:31:56 | sean-k-mooney | ok then unless i see more people reviewin this i think we need to reopen the deprecation pathces | |
| 16:31:58 | bauzas | previously, we had the same concerns when other drivers were asking for reviews and we had that agreement | |
| 16:32:22 | bauzas | I don't see the need of threatening the driver | |
| 16:32:26 | sean-k-mooney | im not seeing other actully take the time to review but bauzas if your happy too review then cool | |
| 16:32:31 | gibi | I would be OK to drop down to 1x +2 for a driver only code with a good CI | |
| 16:32:48 | dansmith | I'm mostly concerned about drivers doing things they shouldn't and not so much the review of the actual vmware-specific bits | |
| 16:32:49 | bauzas | fwiesel makes a solid effort of keeping the job paceful, so we just need reviews | |
| 16:32:59 | dansmith | and I think if we drop down the review requirement we're just asking for rubber stamps | |
| 16:33:16 | bauzas | yeah, exactly why I think we need to continue the agreement we had | |
| 16:33:43 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: that agreement goes too ways assuming more cores then just me look at the patch :) | |
| 16:33:49 | bauzas | two cores need to lookup the patches and somehow be "enlighted" by the result of the CI job | |
| 16:34:00 | sean-k-mooney | im happy for the work fwiesel has been doing | |