Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2024-11-27
11:21:44 opendevreview Ivan Tkachuk proposed openstack/nova master: Reduce calls to qemu-img for disk_info https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936246
12:52:58 dviroel hi there nova folks. I would like to request reviews on this nova spec: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/936140
12:53:46 dviroel just wondering if I should add it to https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.1-status ? under Blueprint needs approval ?
13:02:48 bauzas dviroel: sure, add it in the etherpad
13:04:10 dviroel ty
13:28:51 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Add contributor docs for response body validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924597
13:28:51 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: tests: Ensure all APIs have a response body schema https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924598
13:28:52 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Remove use of microversion constants https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936362
13:28:52 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Allow min/max_version arguments to expected_errors https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936363
13:28:53 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Allow min/max_version arguments to response https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936364
13:28:53 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Adjust validation helpers for a single-method future https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936365
13:28:54 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Stop using wsgi.Controller.api_version to switch between API versions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936366
13:28:54 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add new, simpler api_version decorator https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936367
13:28:55 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Only run format checks on strings https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936368
13:28:56 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Simplify parameter types https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936369
13:38:56 s3rj1k JFYI: I don't see any mentions about adding specs to etherpad in https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/infra-manual/latest/developers.html#working-on-specifications-and-blueprints
13:41:49 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add share_info parameter to reboot method for each driver (driver part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/854823
13:41:50 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support rebooting an instance with shares (compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/854824
13:41:50 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add share_info parameter to resume method for each driver (driver part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860284
13:41:51 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support resuming an instance with shares (compute manager part) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860285
13:41:51 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add helper methods to rescue/unrescue shares https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860286
13:41:52 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Support rescuing an instance with shares https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860287
13:41:52 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Allow to mount manila share using Cephfs protocol https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/883862
13:41:53 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Check shares support (compute manager) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885751
13:41:54 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Attach Manila shares via virtiofs (API) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/836830
13:41:54 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add helper methods to attach/detach shares https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/885753
13:41:56 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_attach notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/850501
13:41:56 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_detach notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851028
13:41:58 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add shares to InstancePayload https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/851029
13:41:58 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_attach_error notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860282
13:42:00 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance.share_detach_error notification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/860283
13:42:00 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Reports instance events to the DB regarding attaching and detaching a share https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927088
13:42:02 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add libvirt test to ensure metadata are working. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/852086
13:42:02 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add virt/libvirt error test cases https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/852087
13:42:04 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Manila shares admin guide documentation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/871642
13:42:04 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor test_server_shares: Mock in Base Class and trait verification https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/935861
13:44:14 sean-k-mooney s3rj1k: thats because bauzas has an ar to udate the doc :) its not a requirement its just an extra way to highlight things that are avialable to review
13:45:09 sean-k-mooney s3rj1k: ildikov filed a but to crrect the docs gap recently
13:45:35 sean-k-mooney s3rj1k: the etherpad was added 2 releases ago, before that we used review priorities
13:46:05 s3rj1k and there is still an extra step of making stub blueprint
13:46:24 sean-k-mooney that is docuemented
13:46:31 sean-k-mooney all spec need a bluepirnt
13:46:36 sean-k-mooney that in the sepc template too
13:46:40 sean-k-mooney https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2089325 is the bug
13:47:11 ildikov +1, I was just about to throw in the bug report link :)
13:47:24 s3rj1k yea, I mean that there is blueprint for tracking state of spec and there is also etherpad
13:48:07 sean-k-mooney the etherpad is purly to help publisise and priories reviews
13:48:17 sean-k-mooney it is not require at all for our process
13:48:58 ildikov I interpreted the etherpad process as a lightweight project management tool that helps the core team to keep track of things that are ongoing
13:49:11 sean-k-mooney yep
13:49:54 sean-k-mooney somethime things can get "lost" in gerrit or lanchpad
13:50:02 s3rj1k imo, I see this as not so optimal, but ok, if that works
13:50:36 sean-k-mooney its manily working aroudn some limistaion in launchpads and gerrit ui
13:50:50 sean-k-mooney to be clear i almost exclisilvy ignor the etherpad
13:51:11 sean-k-mooney i do look at it form time to time but i look at gerrit much more frequently directly
13:51:34 sean-k-mooney i try to take a look at the ether pad once a week however but dont always fidn time too
13:52:03 s3rj1k could been just automated away based on data from gerrit and launchpad)
13:52:26 sean-k-mooney no the peopel that whated it wanted it to be human qurated
13:52:37 sean-k-mooney *curated
13:52:58 sean-k-mooney if we did an automated sync we woudl be back to the noise problem
13:55:52 sean-k-mooney s3rj1k: i get that process can be furstrating, especially if its not clear why or how it works
13:56:57 s3rj1k it just adds extra layer of bureaucracy and this will impact adoption for new community members
13:57:15 sean-k-mooney s3rj1k: how so. currently its not required at all
13:58:12 s3rj1k I have a gut feeling about this, I guess in time we will see
13:58:38 sean-k-mooney its actully there to allow people to engages async and to ask for reviews
13:58:45 sean-k-mooney so its intended to help continutors
13:59:06 sean-k-mooney i.e. so that they dont have to be on irc to ask for reviews
13:59:17 sean-k-mooney when they are not gettign feedback in gerrit
13:59:54 sean-k-mooney gerrit, irc and the mailing list are the 3 primary engagment points for contibutors with launch pad (bugs) for users
14:00:47 s3rj1k there is still RFE step that is semi-supported
14:00:50 sean-k-mooney s3rj1k: im not discounting your feedback im wonderign howe to improvie it (beyond updating the docs)
14:01:06 sean-k-mooney so nova does not use RFE bugs
14:01:11 sean-k-mooney that a neutron specific thing
14:01:20 sean-k-mooney we have experiemtned with adding it but its not part of our process
14:01:44 s3rj1k yea, but how to propose a draft for a feature to talk about? rfe seems perfect for this
14:01:46 sean-k-mooney most openstack teams dont sue RFE bugs, neutron use it because you cant realy have discussion in bluepirnts due to the ui
14:02:34 s3rj1k it's not like rfe is a call to action for core devs) just a place to put text and talk in comments
14:02:55 sean-k-mooney right but lanuchpad is not where we have those dicussions in general
14:03:13 s3rj1k mailing lists?
14:03:14 sean-k-mooney gerrit, irc or the mailing list is outside fo the ptg
14:03:41 sean-k-mooney so normally unless its a triival feature we would expect to have design discussion in a spec review
14:04:14 sean-k-mooney the actul workflow is ment to be, if you have a feature request bring it up on the mailing list or in the irc meeting
14:04:34 sean-k-mooney then based on the inital feedback file a spec or blueprint for it
14:05:04 sean-k-mooney specless blueprings are used for very small features that done require an actual spec but most feature will need a spec
15:46:16 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Simplify parameter types https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936369
15:46:17 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: tests: Ensure all APIs have a response body schema https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924598
16:30:29 opendevreview Serhii Ivanov proposed openstack/nova-specs master: [SPEC] `Add Distributed Locking for Host Discovery`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/936389
16:37:33 opendevreview Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Fix missing oslo.policy options https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936392
16:48:15 opendevreview Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Fix missing oslo.policy options https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/936392
16:53:14 opendevreview Serhii Ivanov proposed openstack/nova-specs master: [SPEC] `Add Distributed Locking for Host Discovery`. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/936389
17:01:19 yosef Hi, in case of complete data loss of openstack database for example in 1 day, is there any way to restore to db, VMs created in this one day?
17:37:34 sean-k-mooney yosef: not really. you could try and manually creat the records but there is no tooling to enable that
18:15:40 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: [codespell] Fixes for latest version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/923738
18:15:56 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: pre-commit: Bump versions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/923739
19:00:01 s3rj1k sean-k-mooney: Can you take a quick look on that Spec CR? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/936389
19:00:44 s3rj1k I've put also some of the alternatives that you've mentioned in there
19:01:10 sean-k-mooney sure
19:01:17 s3rj1k thanks
19:01:22 sean-k-mooney im not convicd you primay propsol is what we shoudl do
19:01:27 sean-k-mooney btu we can discuss it on the spec

Earlier   Later