| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-08-26 | |||
| 15:19:43 | sean-k-mooney | on debian 13 | |
| 15:20:01 | sean-k-mooney | so it will also test python 3.13 | |
| 15:20:44 | sean-k-mooney | that is how i woudl like to evolve that job in anyrate | |
| 15:26:20 | gmaan | sure | |
| 15:32:15 | sean-k-mooney | gmaan: when you have time would you mind reappoving https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952347 | |
| 15:32:38 | gmaan | sean-k-mooney: yeah, I opened it, will do after meeting | |
| 15:32:46 | sean-k-mooney | ack thanks | |
| 15:35:01 | Uggla | Nova meeting in ~30mn | |
| 15:44:47 | gmaan | Uggla: openinfra board finance committee at same time. so I might not be or might be late in today meeting | |
| 15:46:34 | Uggla | gmaan ok, just a question about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/957578 do you think it is something that could land before FF ? | |
| 15:47:38 | gmaan | Uggla: I hope so, we are very close to that. I am testing it (forgot to recheck my testing change yesterday). I think sean-k-mooney is planning to review it (once I ping that it is working) | |
| 15:48:25 | Uggla | It will be great ! | |
| 15:48:50 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Fix URL for v2.0 API deprecation spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/958552 | |
| 15:53:35 | jssfr | Uggla, can I queue up https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955657 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/621646 for the "further discussion" section? | |
| 15:54:02 | Uggla | jssfr, yes I think so. | |
| 15:54:03 | jssfr | In case I don't make it (it's been a busy day... and I might get pulled away): the vTPM patch has been updated and is awaiting review. Would be nice to get it into 2025.2. | |
| 15:54:26 | jssfr | the UEFI patch has *not* been updated, but we'd like to hear whether it's realistic to get it into 2025.2 *if* we were to update it this week and if so, until when we would have to be done. | |
| 15:55:29 | Uggla | jssfr, I think it is a bug, so there is less constraints, bugs are not fully concerned by FF. | |
| 15:56:11 | jssfr | oh, that's good to know | |
| 16:00:31 | Uggla | #startmeeting nova | |
| 16:00:31 | opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Aug 26 16:00:31 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is Uggla. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | |
| 16:00:31 | opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | |
| 16:00:31 | opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'nova' | |
| 16:00:37 | elodilles | o/ | |
| 16:00:47 | dansmith | o/ | |
| 16:00:56 | Uggla | Hello everyone | |
| 16:02:07 | gibi | o/ | |
| 16:02:21 | Uggla | Let's start. | |
| 16:02:30 | Uggla | #topic Bugs (stuck/critical) | |
| 16:02:41 | Uggla | #info No Critical bug | |
| 16:02:49 | Uggla | #topic Gate status | |
| 16:02:58 | Uggla | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure Nova gate bugs | |
| 16:03:06 | Uggla | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-ci-failures-minimal | |
| 16:03:10 | tkajinam | o/ | |
| 16:03:19 | Uggla | #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fnova&project=openstack%2Fplacement&branch=stable%2F*&branch=master&pipeline=periodic-weekly&skip=0 Nova&Placement periodic jobs status | |
| 16:03:31 | Uggla | #info Please look at the gate failures and file a bug report with the gate-failure tag. | |
| 16:03:36 | Uggla | #info Please try to provide a meaningful comment when you recheck | |
| 16:03:39 | bauzas | o/ | |
| 16:04:01 | Uggla | skipping next point as gmaan, is in another meeting. | |
| 16:04:16 | Uggla | topic Release Planning | |
| 16:04:28 | Uggla | #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html | |
| 16:04:34 | Uggla | #info Nova deadlines are set in the above schedule | |
| 16:04:48 | Uggla | #info Feature freeze is Thursday. | |
| 16:05:06 | Uggla | #topic Review priorities | |
| 16:05:14 | Uggla | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2025.2-status | |
| 16:05:57 | gibi | Uggla: Am I correct that FF is on Thurday EOD, whathever apporoved can still rebased / rechecked after to land? Do we plan any FF exception process? | |
| 16:05:58 | Uggla | First I need to thank bauzas, who helped me to better highlight status in the board and sync correctly within launchpad. | |
| 16:06:38 | bauzas | well, I should have given you some help way before | |
| 16:07:19 | Uggla | gibi, I think so. I don't think exception will be needed but we might discuss it here. | |
| 16:07:44 | Uggla | Before that here are the review priorities we identified: | |
| 16:07:52 | Uggla | #link Amd Sev serie (tkajinam) need review https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp/amd-sev-es-libvirt-support%22 | |
| 16:07:59 | Uggla | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/copy-applied-provider-yaml https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/957578 | |
| 16:08:06 | Uggla | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/libvirt-migrate-parallel https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/950667 | |
| 16:08:19 | Uggla | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-service-role-default one patch to review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/957578 | |
| 16:09:32 | Uggla | I discussed latest one with gmaan and that might land if we review it. (only one patch) | |
| 16:10:08 | Uggla | bauzas and I are currently reviewing Amd sev series. | |
| 16:10:48 | sean-k-mooney | o/ | |
| 16:11:15 | gibi | Uggla: I'm currently try to squeez in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/957088 before FF | |
| 16:11:27 | gibi | the rest of the eventlet series can wait post FF / G | |
| 16:11:57 | bauzas | my only concern is that AMD SEV-ES series requires a reshape | |
| 16:12:03 | Uggla | gibi, thanks that was one of the question I had. | |
| 16:12:14 | dansmith | gibi: you said you were fine with the content on that one, but...no unit tests? | |
| 16:12:17 | bauzas | this requires a lot of caution | |
| 16:12:18 | dansmith | are those coming? | |
| 16:12:26 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: techihnaly teh parla clodu migration chnag eis for 2026.1 | |
| 16:12:45 | bauzas | the what ? | |
| 16:12:47 | sean-k-mooney | or did we approve it late for this cycle | |
| 16:12:50 | gibi | dansmith: it is a refactor like the scatter gather change | |
| 16:13:01 | gibi | dansmith: I don't see what extra unit test we need | |
| 16:14:19 | bauzas | well, yes and no | |
| 16:14:21 | dansmith | okay I guess I thought something has to change with those mechanics, but I'll go look at what is testing this to see | |
| 16:14:37 | bauzas | there is a refactor but there is also a slight behavioral change | |
| 16:15:47 | dansmith | the lock obviously isn't verified, but if it's being run over then maybe that's okay | |
| 16:17:02 | gibi | the change is the lock and I want to verify that locally. If you need a functional test to ensure that lock is valid then sure we can do that too | |
| 16:17:22 | gibi | I don't see any other change in logic | |
| 16:18:58 | bauzas | I guess having such an invasive change without any single line of nova/tests made me afraid and I missed the point of the refactor | |
| 16:19:12 | gibi | invasive? you mean a lock? | |
| 16:19:30 | gibi | I'm confused | |
| 16:19:56 | gibi | I thought the goal of the refactor is not to change behavior so if the existing test does not need to be touched that is actaully good | |
| 16:20:23 | gibi | as it proves no behavior change happened | |
| 16:21:23 | dansmith | gibi: I guess I expected to see at least something running this code in both modes, but perhaps I'm jumping the gun there. I know we don't have that for everything we're thread-ifying, but this is also sort of a self-contained example | |
| 16:21:49 | sean-k-mooney | so it would be nice to have the zuul change to enable it in the condutore in the patch | |
| 16:21:49 | bauzas | gibi: I agree with the fact that until some env var is set, nothing changes | |
| 16:22:10 | sean-k-mooney | but i dont consider that an invasive change either for what its worth | |
| 16:22:11 | gibi | dansmith: yeah we did not transformed the unit test to both modes as part of the changes but we did it separately. | |
| 16:22:24 | bauzas | but yeah, I'd have appreciated some guideline to temper my guts | |
| 16:22:32 | sean-k-mooney | its adding a lock that shoudl techenically have been there even under eventlet + swapting the executor we use | |
| 16:22:34 | dansmith | unlike general thread spawning, this is a self-contained create/destroy of a single executor pool, which means we could test both modes here and now which is kinda what I was expecting | |
| 16:23:01 | dansmith | but that's fine | |
| 16:23:22 | gibi | dansmith: I will check my unit test enalbing series if it enables the related tests already... | |
| 16:23:42 | gibi | with threading in a separate tox target | |
| 16:24:37 | sean-k-mooney | what was that job called by the way | |
| 16:24:45 | sean-k-mooney | i tough we already enabled that in ci | |
| 16:24:53 | sean-k-mooney | is that still pending? | |
| 16:24:57 | gibi | nova-tox-py312-threading | |
| 16:25:00 | gibi | it is pending | |
| 16:25:04 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955791/9 | |
| 16:25:06 | sean-k-mooney | ah ok | |
| 16:25:26 | sean-k-mooney | sorry i tought that was earlier in the series | |
| 16:25:36 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/953475/20 that one right | |