| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-11-27 | |||
| 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 | |
| 19:02:13 | s3rj1k | at least I hope to have this finalized in any way) best to have this solved rather than ignoring the issue | |
| 19:02:36 | s3rj1k | so any way works as long as we go forward :) | |
| 19:02:39 | sean-k-mooney | well right now you want to add a distribute lock manager and annoter usage of tooz | |
| 19:02:52 | sean-k-mooney | where as we ahve dicussed how to remove tooz form teh code base | |
| 19:03:03 | sean-k-mooney | at least twice in the last year or two | |
| 19:03:21 | s3rj1k | just like in original rfe, tooz was there yes | |
| 19:03:25 | sean-k-mooney | so we may be able to proced with this but your askign for use to reverse cources on that | |
| 19:03:58 | s3rj1k | we can replace tooz I guess | |
| 19:04:02 | sean-k-mooney | ok jsut so your aware that thsi is a pretty contiversiol approch | |
| 19:04:17 | sean-k-mooney | we generally did not want to ahve a distribute lock manager in nova at all | |
| 19:04:39 | s3rj1k | that's why I invested time in alternatives) | |
| 19:05:04 | sean-k-mooney | the main concern with tooz by the way is its overall mantance | |
| 19:05:37 | sean-k-mooney | what migh be simpler to do is some form of leader elelction | |
| 19:05:44 | sean-k-mooney | rather then a distributed lock | |
| 19:06:14 | s3rj1k | that won't cover CLI | |
| 19:06:29 | sean-k-mooney | well to be clear it does not have too | |
| 19:06:40 | sean-k-mooney | currently the sideefect does nto break anything | |