Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2026-04-17
10:46:36 bauzas doh sorry
10:48:34 bauzas sean-k-mooney: fwiw, stephen removed some sections from the README so I guess it's more important to review the AGENTS.md file now
10:50:55 sean-k-mooney well the AGENT.md is hopelfully very short
10:51:07 sean-k-mooney but i was still on the readme ill look at that next
10:57:04 bauzas sean-k-mooney: there is a rule about not having more than 500 lines for both skill.md and AGENTS.md :)
10:57:29 sean-k-mooney ok i dissagre on both :)
10:57:54 sean-k-mooney skills can be longer then AGENTS.md
10:58:13 sean-k-mooney becuase only frontmatter is loaded into the context window form a skill initally
10:58:29 sean-k-mooney so the overall leght is only an issue if the skill is actully used
10:58:44 sean-k-mooney where as AGENT.md is incldue in every tool call
10:58:55 sean-k-mooney so it need to be smaller
10:59:15 sean-k-mooney i dont want to perscibe an actual number right now
10:59:22 sean-k-mooney but those shoudl be trated differntly
10:59:46 bauzas sean-k-mooney: I'm just advocating based on the agentskills best practice :) https://agentskills.io/skill-creation/best-practices#structure-large-skills-with-progressive-disclosure
11:01:08 bauzas anyway, I don't want to be that prescreptive, fwiw the AGENTS.md is pretty small atm, and no skills won't be accepted before we officially agree on the direction
11:04:43 sean-k-mooney https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/agentic-workflows/+/985021/1/README.rst has my initall comments
11:05:24 sean-k-mooney bauzas: wether we use tox or not was goint to be one of the topic i watned to dicss by the way
11:05:53 bauzas I just wanted a small linter on check
11:05:55 sean-k-mooney if we expect to have python script and or unit test then it makes sesne
11:06:00 bauzas hence the use ot tox
11:06:08 bauzas sean-k-mooney: and thanks for the reviews
11:06:10 sean-k-mooney if we dont then we may want to condier other options
11:07:03 bauzas the current is that we use a tox target in check and gate for checking the frontmatters using the 'agentskills validate' recommended tool
11:09:36 bauzas https://agentskills.io/specification#validation
11:10:43 sean-k-mooney yep i just saw but again we shoudl dicuss those ways of working first
11:24:54 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: can you re-ack https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984918?
11:25:12 stephenfin and bauzas, ditto for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984956/ (I'd to fix some typos and a comment from dan)
11:25:14 bauzas sean-k-mooney: well, I don't see the controversy for the frontmatter linter
11:25:41 bauzas sean-k-mooney: what's your concern with running a tox target with it ? that's an easy win to me
11:25:53 sean-k-mooney well the issue is mroe that you merged anything before the ptg into this repo
11:26:11 bauzas none of that is skills
11:26:19 sean-k-mooney i dont think you shoudl have merge anything
11:26:21 sean-k-mooney at all
11:26:45 sean-k-mooney as i said creating the reviews is totlaly fine
11:27:22 stephenfin It's done. Let's keep reviewing now and gather thoughts for the PTG
11:27:35 sean-k-mooney yep that what im focusing on
11:27:53 bauzas again I apologize, I didn't wanted to force anything but trying to just have a boostrap that people can review
11:28:34 bauzas I'm cool with reverting for example the tox patch but I found this was not really controversial
11:29:36 stephenfin I'll repeat 😄 It's done. Let's keep reviewing now and gather thoughts for the PTG. There's a lot more people that are going to have opinions on this than us
11:29:38 sean-k-mooney its not the content of hte patch that was the issue it was the lack fo time to provide feedback
11:49:35 bauzas sean-k-mooney: I think, the easiest if you want is for me to revert https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/agentic-workflows/+/985027 which was at the top
11:50:07 bauzas and then I'll revert the revert so we can discuss about the AGENTS.md in the new gerrit patch if that's simplied
11:50:26 sean-k-mooney lets not jump right to that
11:50:39 bauzas now the README.md is pretty small
11:50:46 sean-k-mooney as steph said its merged but there are large part of it that i want to review in detail and refine
11:50:49 bauzas so I guess we definitely need to discuss about te structure
11:51:09 sean-k-mooney yes i have a very diffent vission from you of how this repo should be stucureed
11:51:28 sean-k-mooney adn how the code-review skill shoudl work
11:51:55 sean-k-mooney for exampels i do not think we shoudl have any personas in the repo
11:52:28 bauzas sean-k-mooney: so if you don't me to revert, please provide a new change for changing what you want
11:52:47 sean-k-mooney i will but im still reviewing all the open chnages
11:52:57 sean-k-mooney to do what stephen suggested
11:53:05 sean-k-mooney which is building a set of topic to dicusss
12:21:09 bauzas sean-k-mooney: stephenfin: want me to create another IRC channel for the project ? I don't want to hit the nova channel to be a lot of discussions for the project and ralonsoh could be join as well
12:21:31 stephenfin probably premature before next week
12:21:32 sean-k-mooney am we can
12:21:46 sean-k-mooney but ya lets wait
12:25:10 sean-k-mooney i mean we can create it if you want but i porably have already spent more tiem on this then i should have since i have things to prepare before the ptg
12:27:09 bauzas I just joined #openstack-agentic-workflows so you can join too, but agreed, I wouldn't add it in openstack/project-config until next week
12:27:45 bauzas I'd rather prefer us to discuss there
12:38:08 ralonsoh bauzas, I'm ok with this. We can also, if needed, create a weekly meeting
12:38:16 ralonsoh but that could be discussed in the PTG, in any case
12:38:23 ralonsoh but yes, the channel would be perfect
12:39:27 gibi is this agentic-workflows something that should be a TC driven cross project goal? I think so. But then we need to agree on what is in scope of that goal and propose that in the governance repo
12:39:53 bauzas gibi: see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/984958
12:40:10 bauzas that wouldn't be a TC goal, rather a TaCT SIG new project
12:40:30 gibi ack
12:40:45 bauzas ralonsoh: you can join the channel as I did, we can discuss there until we officially add it in project-config
12:41:03 gibi but that patch does not seems to define the scope
12:41:18 bauzas gibi: there is no real scope per say
12:41:39 bauzas scope is about adding skills and subagents related to OpenStack
12:41:41 gibi and is that good that we are going in without some scope definition?
12:42:00 gibi how do we check if we are going to the right direction, or when we are done?
12:42:02 ralonsoh #join project-config
12:42:03 bauzas but the project doesn't have scope about how to use it by upstream
12:42:08 ralonsoh arggggg
12:42:21 bauzas ralonsoh: nah, join #openstack-agentic-workflows
12:42:29 ralonsoh yeah hehehe
12:42:34 gibi scope also helps judging contributions about is it in scope? is it out of scope?
12:45:16 bauzas gibi: there aren't yet conventions about judging contributions for it atm, but there are already some guidelines from agentskills about evaluating skills that I'd like us to do https://agentskills.io/skill-creation/evaluating-skills
12:47:22 gibi OK so one of the implicit scope / goal item is to apply https://agentskills.io/skill-creation/evaluating-skills going forward.
12:47:33 gibi can we collect these implicit things and make them explicit
12:47:56 opendevreview Kamil Sambor proposed openstack/nova master: Test nova CLI commands with native threading https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984036
12:48:03 bauzas gibi: the problem with skill evaluations is that you need to be able to use LLMs for evaluating them
12:48:16 bauzas so we can't run CI upstream jobs atm
12:48:32 bauzas I added this item for the TC topic we'll discuss next week
12:49:44 gibi you can define goal and scope regardless of if an item in the goal is CI verifiable or not. j
13:13:30 bauzas gibi: true
13:24:42 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add reproducer for bug #2141722 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984521
13:24:43 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Fix os-simple-tenant-usage pagination with duplicate instance_extra https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984522
13:50:16 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add reproducer for bug #2111320: soft-deleted services in Instance.services https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/982675
13:50:16 opendevreview ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Filter soft-deleted services from Instance.services ORM relationship https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/982676
13:54:51 Zhan[m] Hi friends, I have two quick live migration related improvements for review, wondering if I can get some quick feedback on the ideas? Thanks! https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/978255, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/976311
13:57:41 stephenfin sean-k-mooney: just a reminder about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984918, in case you got distacted by the agent stuff :)
13:58:16 stephenfin (if it's already on your list, sorry for the noise)
14:12:43 opendevreview Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Fix functional tests and mypy on macOS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937727
14:55:57 winiciusallan[m] folks, I saw a lot of discussion on the mail list about a spot instance service in Nova, some people have even start implementing, but this wasn't go further
14:56:04 winiciusallan[m] CERN has a external service for this https://gitlab.cern.ch/cloud-infrastructure/aardvark
14:56:29 winiciusallan[m] do you know by chance if having this kind of service integrated into Nova is interest for the community?
15:00:08 winiciusallan[m] i'm thinking of implementing this as part of my final thesis. this will make other research regarding billing and charge strategies easier to evaluate

Earlier   Later