| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-06-17 | |||
| 16:19:34 | Uggla | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:19:36 | gmaan | i will check a few today, | |
| 16:19:47 | Uggla | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-status | |
| 16:19:52 | Uggla | gmaan, thx | |
| 16:20:51 | Uggla | I'll try to update the doc by next week, to have a better view of what has been reviewed and what's left. | |
| 16:21:08 | Uggla | #topic OpenAPI | |
| 16:21:22 | Uggla | #link: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22openapi%22+(project:openstack/nova+OR+project:openstack/placement)+-status:merged+-status:abandoned | |
| 16:21:30 | Uggla | #info 20 increase +2 due to FUP. | |
| 16:21:57 | Uggla | but we did progress on this one. | |
| 16:22:16 | Uggla | #topic Stable Branches | |
| 16:22:26 | Uggla | elodilles, I give you the mic | |
| 16:22:33 | elodilles | thanks Uggla , | |
| 16:22:40 | elodilles | as far as i know: | |
| 16:22:45 | elodilles | #info stable branches (stable/2025.1 and stable/2024.*) seem to be in OK state | |
| 16:22:53 | elodilles | #info stable branch status / gate failures tracking etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-stable-branch-ci | |
| 16:23:03 | elodilles | please add issues here ^^^ if you find one | |
| 16:23:13 | elodilles | that's all from me about stable | |
| 16:23:17 | elodilles | Uggla: back to you | |
| 16:23:27 | Uggla | thx elodilles | |
| 16:23:31 | elodilles | np | |
| 16:23:44 | Uggla | #topic vmwareapi 3rd-party CI efforts Highlights | |
| 16:23:52 | fwiesel | Hi, no updates there. | |
| 16:24:05 | Uggla | fwiesel, ok thx. | |
| 16:24:21 | Uggla | #topic Gibi's news about eventlet removal. | |
| 16:24:22 | Uggla | #link Blog: https://gibizer.github.io/categories/eventlet/ | |
| 16:24:28 | Uggla | #link nova-scheduler series is ready for core review, starting at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/947966 | |
| 16:24:44 | Uggla | gibi do you want to share something ? | |
| 16:27:29 | bauzas | I guess he provided a revision so the next need will be to review it | |
| 16:27:43 | bauzas | (which is something I'll do) | |
| 16:28:21 | Uggla | I know he added some stuff on top of the serie to improve logging. | |
| 16:28:31 | gibi | sorry | |
| 16:28:38 | gibi | to many discussins in parallel | |
| 16:28:44 | gibi | so | |
| 16:29:02 | gibi | thanks for the review I fixed most of the comments we gathered on the last weeks sycn | |
| 16:29:37 | opendevreview | Abhishek Kekane proposed openstack/nova master: Revert^2 "Support glance's new location API" https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/950623 | |
| 16:29:37 | gibi | there is one comment form sean-k-mooney about the spanwissynchronous fixture I have to work on | |
| 16:29:46 | gibi | it actually pointed to an independent nova bug | |
| 16:29:53 | gibi | I linked to the channel last evening | |
| 16:30:06 | gibi | other than that the series is reviewable | |
| 16:30:25 | gibi | and yes there are some logging improvement on top of the series based on the last week's sync | |
| 16:30:48 | gibi | and at some point I will add one proposal to the futurist lib as well for executor utilization | |
| 16:31:08 | gibi | other than this I dropped a "bomb" on the mailing list | |
| 16:31:17 | gibi | about the eventlet removal timelien | |
| 16:31:26 | Uggla | using spawn instead of fork ? | |
| 16:31:28 | gibi | as 2026.2 is pretty streched for us based on our progress | |
| 16:31:46 | gibi | Uggla: nope just utilization logging | |
| 16:32:02 | Uggla | ok | |
| 16:32:05 | gibi | I have to go back to that ML thread as there are replys | |
| 16:32:50 | gibi | I expect TC will be involved | |
| 16:32:53 | gibi | that is all | |
| 16:33:13 | bauzas | We'll discuss it today at the TC meeting | |
| 16:33:14 | Uggla | maybe we could discuss news about that in the weekly meeting about eventlet. | |
| 16:33:15 | gmaan | I think we will be discussing it in today meeting | |
| 16:33:22 | gmaan | yeah | |
| 16:33:27 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: are you refering to the spawn_on interaction or a diffent nova issue | |
| 16:33:30 | bauzas | In the open discussion | |
| 16:33:49 | bauzas | (I added the topic? | |
| 16:33:54 | bauzas | ) | |
| 16:33:56 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: we dont need to go into detail just wondering if it was somethign else | |
| 16:34:07 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: yepp the spawn_on pointed to the bug I linked yesterady about the decorator on the build_and_run_instance | |
| 16:34:17 | sean-k-mooney | oh that | |
| 16:34:24 | sean-k-mooney | ok thanks for the context | |
| 16:34:27 | gibi | nhp | |
| 16:34:29 | gibi | np | |
| 16:34:44 | gibi | btw this is the eventlet removal ML thread https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/BIC7BTAN72X6AA4BE6VVNSP7FYFOC362/ | |
| 16:34:48 | gibi | just for the record | |
| 16:34:58 | Uggla | +1 | |
| 16:35:31 | gibi | that is all from me | |
| 16:35:42 | Uggla | thx gibi, moving on. | |
| 16:35:46 | Uggla | #topic Bridging the Gap: metrics and survey analyses | |
| 16:35:48 | fungi | i'll try to be quick, but there's a lot we dug into... for some background on openstack-wide metrics analysis see ildikov's most recent ml post yesterday: | |
| 16:35:52 | fungi | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/NTBNI7YIDCWBR6BTPEKVZIODWTVUIOXO/ BtG metrics analysis | |
| 16:35:59 | fungi | also could be worthwhile to revisit her previous post in that thread going over the contributor and survey results (and anyone who hasn't filled those out for epoxy, please see if you can find a few minutes to do that!) | |
| 16:36:09 | fungi | as a follow-up activity, we've started doing some team-specific analyses, focusing on teams that had multiple contributor and maintainer survey responses | |
| 16:36:19 | fungi | the contributor survey had 2 responses for nova and both respondents had contributed for at least 2 years and were contributors to at least two other open source projects | |
| 16:36:29 | fungi | most feedback was relatively neutral (averaging 3-3.5 out of 5) with the lowest score being a 2 on "Changes you propose are reviewed in a timely manner" | |
| 16:36:43 | fungi | "You receive actionable feedback from other reviewers" had the widest skew, with a 2 and a 5 from the respondents | |
| 16:36:56 | fungi | top challenges reported were trouble with review attention, unhelpful comments and reviewers asking to expand the scope of the change | |
| 16:37:04 | fungi | additional feedback noted that the team seemed to have more work backlog than people available to manage it, and that change prioritization seemed to be a struggle | |
| 16:37:13 | fungi | the maintainer survey also had 2 responses with overall higher scores than the cntributor survey (averaging 3-4.5) | |
| 16:37:22 | fungi | contributing challenges reported were similar to those from the other survey, but specifically called out slow review times leading to changes with one +2 falling into merge conflict and repeatedly having to be rebased and re-reviewed, eating up more maintainer resources | |
| 16:37:31 | fungi | the top challenges with reviewing were changes without a spec/blueprint, low-priority changes, and contributors failing to address review comments or ci failures | |
| 16:37:46 | fungi | other comments included struggles in agreeing on automated tooling, and inconsistency of style/lint choices between different openstack teams | |
| 16:37:54 | fungi | looking at metrics we gathered from gerrit for the past 5 development cycles, we saw caracal was particularly slow for reviews (also observed for cinder), not sure what the cause was but then things got somewhat better again in the past year | |
| 16:38:08 | fungi | number of changes that don't get merged within a cycle were fairly steady over time except for epoxy where it spiked, and review times seemed consistent with contributor survey observations | |
| 16:38:23 | fungi | finding some way to improve the time to first review might help keep contributors, new and established, involved and engaged | |
| 16:38:33 | fungi | trying to balance out first review time between new/casual contributors and established team members/maintainers could also help | |
| 16:38:42 | fungi | probably the biggest and most actionable suggestion to is better/clearer communication in reviews that are done, particularly increasing transparency with regard to change and spec prioritization | |
| 16:38:49 | fungi | sorry, i know that's a pretty big info dump (i tried to pare it down as much as possible | |
| 16:38:58 | fungi | if ildikov's around she might also have additional comments | |
| 16:39:42 | fungi | also if anyone has questions, i'm happy to try and answer them either here in the meeting or in irc after | |
| 16:40:19 | gibi | what my pretty tired mind got this from is: so basically we should say no to new specs early instead of approving them and then not reviewing the implementation in time | |
| 16:40:20 | fungi | this is still just the beginning, we'll be continuing to run the surveys and refine some of the gerrit metrics we've been looking at | |
| 16:41:07 | fungi | gibi: yes, that's a great insight. having some feel for what your future review bandwidth might be and keeping conservative about over-committing to feature work especially | |
| 16:41:22 | gibi | then we will get the feedback that we are hostile for proposals | |
| 16:41:34 | gmaan | I am sure the feedback for this will be 'nova stopped accepting new request/features' | |
| 16:41:38 | gmaan | gibi: ++ | |
| 16:41:48 | gibi | this is a very hard thing to balance | |
| 16:41:53 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure if SLUPR effect impacted caracal. nova POCed the slurp process for yoga to antelope | |
| 16:41:59 | sean-k-mooney | but caracal was the first offical one | |