Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2024-09-13
14:56:47 gibi bauzas: which way you want to land the shared storage fix: a) I add the UT to supamatt's commit directly or b) I push the UT separately and then I can +2 the commit with the fix still
14:58:56 bauzas can we squash both ?
14:59:13 bauzas you can +2 the patch, I'm fine
14:59:25 bauzas I'll explain in my comment why it's fine
14:59:40 bauzas (and I want to stop by the top of the hour :) )
15:01:28 gibi OK I will push the squash in 5 mins
15:08:12 opendevreview OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/placement stable/2024.2: Update .gitreview for stable/2024.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/929290
15:08:13 opendevreview OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/placement stable/2024.2: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2024.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/929291
15:08:15 opendevreview OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/placement master: Update master for stable/2024.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/929292
15:09:35 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Fix regression with live migration on shared storage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928970
15:09:40 gibi bauzas: ^^
15:09:45 gibi sorry it was 8 minutes
15:09:56 gibi but I can offer an extended commit message in return :)
15:12:19 gibi cc artom: ^^
15:16:49 gibi and I need to drop now
15:16:59 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: allow upgrade of pre-victoria InstanceNUMACells https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929187
15:22:13 bauzas sean-k-mooney: can you please review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928970 ?
15:22:52 frickler sean-k-mooney: no, I only tested locally, feel free to add a dep to verify
15:24:27 sean-k-mooney frickler:i have +2 the client patch after verifyign the filed in the sdk and novaclient
15:24:45 sean-k-mooney frickler: i have also added it as a depedn on in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929187
15:24:55 sean-k-mooney altough i dont knwo fi the jobs are set up to pull in osc form souce
15:25:10 sean-k-mooney bauzas: sure ill take a look now
15:25:27 bauzas thanks, now I need to go off
15:25:33 sean-k-mooney frickler: i think at this point we just need someone form the sdk team to +w the clinet patch
15:26:13 sean-k-mooney bauzas: o/ enjoy your weekend
15:26:29 bauzas thanks
15:30:40 sean-k-mooney +2w, the approch looks good. i woudl have prefer a functioanl regression test but the coverage is enough to proceed with. ill look at tempest ci coverage for this next week if i have time
20:02:01 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: Add Dalmatian prelude section https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928995
#openstack-nova - 2024-09-14
20:31:42 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [tox] add LOCALE_ARCHIVE to passenv https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929353
20:31:42 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] provide a nix flake for simple dev envs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929354
20:34:26 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [tox] add LOCALE_ARCHIVE to passenv https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929353
20:34:26 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] provide a nix flake for simple dev envs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929354
22:37:12 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] provide a nix flake for simple dev envs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929354
22:38:30 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] provide a nix flake for simple dev envs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929354
#openstack-nova - 2024-09-15
12:27:13 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] provide a nix flake for simple dev envs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929354
12:27:14 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: [tox] enable piwheels to speed up tox https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929366
#openstack-nova - 2024-09-16
06:18:54 opendevreview Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Drop SQLALCHEMY_WARN_20 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929395
06:22:56 opendevreview Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/placement master: Drop SQLALCHEMY_WARN_20 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/929397
06:25:18 opendevreview Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Drop SQLALCHEMY_WARN_20 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929395
06:25:41 opendevreview Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/placement master: Drop SQLALCHEMY_WARN_20 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/929397
06:40:02 auniyal Zuul UI updated https://zuul.openstack.org/status, looks pretty good, ++ to who ever is responsible
07:31:56 gibi yeah nice UI rewamp
10:04:13 gibi bauzas: do you aware that we have a blocked gate still even though the openstackclient evacuate fix is merged in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/929236 ?
10:04:23 gibi do we need a new client release and a upper constraint bump?
10:06:03 gibi elodilles: maybe you have more context on this ^^
11:53:43 bauzas gibi: yup, I was aware of the problem, hence my question in the #openstack-release channel
11:54:18 sean-k-mooney bauzas: if your talking about th osc issue
11:54:32 sean-k-mooney stephenfin just porposed a 7.1.1 release to adress it
11:54:41 bauzas gibi: we need https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/929402 to be merged and then creating a new release
11:54:54 bauzas sean-k-mooney: okay
11:55:22 sean-k-mooney https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/929454
11:56:14 gibi hm 7.1.1 is released from master but we have a backport https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/929402 merged to 2024.2
11:56:22 gibi so I'm a bit confused which one to consume
11:56:51 gibi hm sorry 7.1.1 seems to point to the stable branch
11:57:05 sean-k-mooney we willl need to pull in 7.1.1 into 2024.2's uc
11:57:10 sean-k-mooney after the release
11:57:17 gibi yeah that is the next step after the release then
11:57:33 sean-k-mooney i just told stephen about the job failure and he is fixign the typo
11:57:57 sean-k-mooney ah already done
11:59:04 sean-k-mooney i could make depends on work but i think its will take about the same amount of time to get resulst that way as waitign for the release
12:03:51 gibi yepp
12:05:01 sean-k-mooney the reset of the stuff in this chain is more of an experiment but i would appricate if we could merge https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/929353
12:06:24 sean-k-mooney it took a while to figure out why activatign the docs ven and running sphinx-build worked but tox -e docs didnt but it was trivial in the end
12:24:57 amorin hey nova team, is there any way to retrieve the nova instance az hints that were given during boot time other than looking in request_specs in DB? I can't find a way to retrieve that from the openstack/nova client/api
12:36:03 bauzas amorin: you need to upgrade to Caracal :)
12:36:07 bauzas amorin: https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/reference/api-microversion-history.html#maximum-in-2024-1-caracal-and-2024-2-dalmatian
12:36:32 bauzas by microversion 2.95, it will tell you whether the instance was pinned or not to an AZ
12:36:45 bauzas s/2.95/2.96 sorry
13:03:34 amorin bauzas, perfect! Will take a look
13:04:11 amorin do you have, by chance, link to the commits related to that? Maybe I can hack my antelope :)
13:09:58 amorin no worrie, found it :)
15:26:59 bauzas elodilles: frickler: so, about the OSC upgrade, I heard some good concerns
15:28:43 bauzas we haven't really tested the new OSC version and we're afraid to see *other* regressions
15:29:49 bauzas wouldn't it be *less* risky to let nova 2024.2 pin at OSC 6.x like we had before ?
15:30:13 bauzas (discussing it here and not in #openstack-release as I'd prefer nova folks to also discuss it)
15:34:33 elodilles are you aware of any (potential) regression? :-o
15:47:04 frickler bauzas: well the thing is that you cannot pin osc just for nova. if you pin it for everyone, you miss out a lot of the new that has been added. so less risky, yes, but less progress, too. but essentially that's a discussion to take up with the sdk team mostly I'd think
15:47:40 bauzas well, I already got scars about late bumps
15:48:15 bauzas and I have very little confidence of those kind of issues not to reproduce later
15:48:41 bauzas clearly the uc jobs are not proven robust enought
15:48:43 bauzas enough
15:48:50 melwitt was there not a requirements freeze weeks ago? https://releases.openstack.org/dalmatian/schedule.html#d-rf
15:51:32 frickler reqs freeze is for external deps, it explicitly does not include openstack deliverables
15:53:55 melwitt ok, I didn't see that mentioned in the link
15:56:44 melwitt it seems really late to be opening upper-constraints to not yet tested versions, regardless. IMHO
16:00:55 dansmith I missed that we're also discussing this here
16:01:23 dansmith frickler: it seems like anything that isn't being tested against master (i.e. nova's jobs uses cinder from master) then that's fine
16:01:29 bauzas most folks are now aware of the -release chat, let's move there
16:01:51 dansmith for things where development happens all cycle and then pops a release at the very end that everyone depends on, there needs to be an earlier deadline
16:14:28 JayF FWIW, Ironic is a cycle-with-intermediary, and we were commenting in our meeting on how we're going to frontrun our deadline as to avoid stress for folks. We do not have to deliver a final release until sometime next week. Thinking about it, I'm not sure that significant misalignment in deadlines makes sense.
16:47:24 dansmith JayF: but we also test nova master against ironic master right?
16:47:35 JayF Yes, that's what I said, we cross-test
16:48:16 JayF but this is still a gap in how we do planning, if other project are -with-intermeidary (tbh I don't know if they are)
16:48:56 dansmith yeah, that's a much better place to be in than what we're discussing here, which is project that is coordinated-released but where nobody tests against its master until the last minute (apparently)
#openstack-nova - 2024-09-17
06:44:41 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Amend ShareMappingStatus due to asynchronous call https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/908864
06:44:41 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Amend DB model add a unique constraint. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/912518
06:44:42 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (manila abstraction) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/831194
06:44:42 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Use client token when talking to manila https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/925277
06:44:43 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (drivers and compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/833090
06:44:43 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Mounting the shares as part of the initialization process https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880075

Earlier   Later