| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-02-04 | |||
| 16:47:38 | bauzas | r-taketn: could you please add your two topics at the bottom of that etherpad ? | |
| 16:47:49 | r-taketn | ok, i'll prepare | |
| 16:47:58 | r-taketn | bauzas: ok i'll add | |
| 16:48:00 | bauzas | the one we discuss last week and the other one from this week | |
| 16:48:09 | bauzas | r-taketn: thanks | |
| 16:48:17 | bauzas | I'll also add a couple of topics too | |
| 16:48:27 | bauzas | and I'll tell about the PTG etherpad next week | |
| 16:49:24 | bauzas | are we done for today? | |
| 16:49:27 | masahito | is it okay to start adding some topics on the etherpad? | |
| 16:49:34 | MengyangZhang[m] | I have a question. I was wondering if it is still possible to request an exception to add this bp https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack/?searchtext=add-burst-length-support to Eproxy. The code change is minor and is ready for review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939490 | |
| 16:49:37 | masahito | it's quick question. | |
| 16:49:46 | sean-k-mooney | r-taketn: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/662264 was the spec i wrote for RDT 5 years ago just an fyi. | |
| 16:50:03 | bauzas | masahito: yes indeed, you can add topics | |
| 16:50:14 | sean-k-mooney | MengyangZhang[m]: its very very late to do that | |
| 16:50:14 | masahito | thanks. | |
| 16:50:34 | bauzas | MengyangZhang[m]: yeah unfortunately, we're past approval freeze from 3 weeks now | |
| 16:50:42 | bauzas | and feature freeze is in 3 weeks too | |
| 16:51:18 | bauzas | the main reason why we have that approval freeze is for making sure we have enough capacity to review all the already approved ones | |
| 16:51:55 | MengyangZhang[m] | understood sorry i was away for two weeks, so i will need to resubmit it for 2025-02? | |
| 16:51:57 | bauzas | that wouldn't be fair to unprioritize some reviews by looking at some other patch, whatever big it is | |
| 16:52:06 | r-taketn | sean-k-mooney: thanks, and sorry, i have not checked it. | |
| 16:52:17 | bauzas | MengyangZhang[m]: unfortunately yes | |
| 16:52:36 | MengyangZhang[m] | okk will do | |
| 16:53:00 | bauzas | thanks | |
| 16:53:04 | bauzas | I guess we're done then | |
| 16:53:06 | bauzas | thanks all | |
| 16:53:09 | sean-k-mooney | MengyangZhang[m]: the folder is already created and the specs for next cycle are open for review, so this could be done early next cycle | |
| 16:53:09 | MengyangZhang[m] | do i need to re-attend nova meeting once that's updated? | |
| 16:53:53 | sean-k-mooney | not nessisarly we can just review it once its posted | |
| 16:54:02 | MengyangZhang[m] | okk thanks! | |
| 16:54:29 | bauzas | MengyangZhang[m]: you don't need to attend the meeting in person, but please add it in our agenda for asking for a specless blueprint when you want | |
| 16:55:03 | MengyangZhang[m] | ok do you have a link to the agenda? | |
| 16:55:26 | bauzas | https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting | |
| 16:55:39 | MengyangZhang[m] | thanks! | |
| 16:55:42 | bauzas | just add it in the open discussion and request for a specless blueprint approval | |
| 16:56:56 | bauzas | see the documentation here for trivial features approval https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/readme.html#trivial-specifications | |
| 16:57:30 | bauzas | or ping me whenever you want | |
| 16:57:38 | bauzas | anyway, we're almost at time | |
| 16:57:43 | MengyangZhang[m] | thanks! | |
| 16:57:44 | bauzas | anything anyone ? | |
| 16:58:08 | bauzas | then thanks all | |
| 16:58:12 | bauzas | #endmeeting | |
| 16:58:12 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Feb 4 16:58:12 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 16:58:12 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-04-16.03.html | |
| 16:58:12 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-04-16.03.txt | |
| 16:58:12 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2025/nova.2025-02-04-16.03.log.html | |
| 16:58:22 | r-taketn | Thank you for discussing. | |
| 16:58:26 | elodilles | thanks o/ | |
| 16:58:31 | gibi | thanks forlks | |
| 16:58:36 | gibi | and folks even :) | |
| 16:58:41 | fwiesel | Thanks | |
| 16:58:43 | masahito | thanks everyone | |
| 17:00:03 | sean-k-mooney | MengyangZhang[m]: i suspect the current impletion is missing some fucntionatliy to ensure the compute node supprot the feature when we have a mix os openstack version on different compute nodes by the way | |
| 17:00:16 | sean-k-mooney | MengyangZhang[m]:the existin spec does not cover that properlys. | |
| 17:00:28 | sean-k-mooney | ill leave a comment to that effect on teh current one. | |
| 17:02:07 | ratailor | sean-k-mooney, gibi I have to leave now, its too late for me. I will update the patch tomorrow and we can discuss then. | |
| 17:02:12 | masahito | gibi sean-k-mooney: if you have time, please review this bug fix again. The new patchset returns null at list API in both no pinned az case and no request spec case. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939658 | |
| 17:02:22 | gibi | ratailor: sure. I also don't have time right now to load context there | |
| 17:02:36 | ratailor | gibi, sean-k-mooney ack. Thanks! | |
| 17:02:50 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ratailor i suggested just adding additional_properties=True | |
| 17:03:17 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I think stephenfin was against that | |
| 17:03:42 | sean-k-mooney | if we cna restrict that only a filed called properties in the image object then that woudl be better | |
| 17:03:44 | gibi | and I also would like to be at least specific on the level of string keys, with length check | |
| 17:03:47 | gibi | and charset check | |
| 17:04:13 | sean-k-mooney | we could do that | |
| 17:04:24 | sean-k-mooney | what i want to avoid is listing the speicic image properties | |
| 17:04:56 | sean-k-mooney | specicicly becasue adding a new image property is not an api change today so we should not encode the set of options in the respocne schema | |
| 17:06:03 | sean-k-mooney | but im ok with encodeign some general restrictions. image properties are not free from so its less problatic then other files but we can still do some level fo validation | |
| 17:06:49 | gibi | yeah, lets try to be strict about having a field "properties" and that it is an object with string key values with some length and charset requirements | |
| 17:07:00 | gibi | I think we have example of such schema pieces already | |
| 17:07:16 | sean-k-mooney | ack probaly server metadata? | |
| 17:09:33 | gibi | yeah that is a good candidate | |
| 17:10:45 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure if the schema for that has merged or not but its the clsoet i can think of. the server tags api is not key:value if i recall, aggreate metadata woudl be another option to look at too | |
| 17:14:03 | gibi | jsonschema is OK with a field called properties https://paste.opendev.org/show/b8Vs43sf3PThcDuMbjIn/ | |
| 17:14:15 | gibi | I will link this to the patch as ratailor is offline... | |
| 17:15:13 | sean-k-mooney | cool, i agree with the restirction you were proposing so can you capture that in your comment also | |
| 17:15:29 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. lenght/charset enforcement | |
| 17:18:14 | gibi | done :) | |
| 17:20:14 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reproduce bug/2097359 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940603 | |
| 17:20:14 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Bump InstanceNUMACell version after data migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940604 | |
| 17:24:36 | opendevreview | Fabian Wiesel proposed openstack/nova master: Re-raise exception for failed reboot for error reporting. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940725 | |
| 17:55:18 | gibi | Salah Hazaa: I see that you updated my review in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937275 was there any particular reason to do so? I will going to restore my version of that review now... | |
| 17:59:35 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: im kind of confused by there coment with just a sha or change id | |
| 17:59:47 | sean-k-mooney | its not the first time i have seen someone do that recently | |
| 18:00:01 | sean-k-mooney | it makes me wonder if thsoe are bot comments or similar | |
| 18:00:53 | opendevreview | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: [CI][nova-next]test with placement ac breadth-first https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937275 | |
| 18:01:03 | sean-k-mooney | same thing here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/940448/comments/53acb822_bf3e4455 | |
| 18:01:20 | gibi | I think the person tried to resolve my review in merge conflict but failed | |
| 18:01:45 | sean-k-mooney | maybe but that does not explian the same behaivor on the requirements patch | |
| 18:02:14 | gibi | yeah | |
| 18:02:50 | sean-k-mooney | and here https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/931314 | |
| 18:04:15 | sean-k-mooney | to me its sus that they comemnted the same tyep of hash comment on releas eand reqiuremnts patches in 19 seconds appart, | |
| 18:05:10 | sean-k-mooney | the comment on your patch was a few hours later | |
| 18:05:12 | gibi | we can try to reach out to the email the account has on file in gerrit | |
| 18:06:59 | sean-k-mooney | perhaps, frickler also asked about thi son a diffetn review if i recall | |
| 18:07:42 | gibi | anyhow I'm done for today. See you tomorrow o/ | |
| 18:12:26 | sean-k-mooney | frickler: it seams to be a recurring pattern where all there comments are a sha or review link of some kind https://review.opendev.org/dashboard/37702 | |
| 18:15:26 | sean-k-mooney | often the comment is just the change id or gerrit query url with the change id | |
| 18:49:13 | bauzas | gmann: I counted 23 jobs running on check pipeline for nova | |
| 18:50:00 | bauzas | gmann: I forgot context but I guess we still need to run the two jobs for the old rbacs and the new default policies ? | |