| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-04-17 | |||
| 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 | |
| 15:14:06 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: tox: Remove override of install_command https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984918 | |
| 15:14:48 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: docs: Update development-environment guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984956 | |
| 15:42:51 | sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: we decieed that it should not be in nova | |
| 15:43:24 | sean-k-mooney | we reivwed the sepec and went back and forth but decieed it shoudl live as its own thing external to nova | |
| 15:43:44 | sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: i have tought that this could live in watcher in the future | |
| 15:43:52 | sean-k-mooney | there is also a host based version in blazar today | |
| 15:44:23 | sean-k-mooney | but i think watcher can facilatate a more granular approch similar to the orgianl concept | |
| 15:49:38 | winiciusallan[m] | sean-k-mooney: yeah, thinking about watcher it looks more natural considering the architecture of the service | |
| 15:50:32 | winiciusallan[m] | I dropped a message on scientific-sig asking if people have use cases or gaps that they would like to improve | |
| 15:51:14 | winiciusallan[m] | one from NASA talked about GPUs being expensive and it might be a use case for them | |
| 15:51:22 | sean-k-mooney | i dont know if i ever wrote up a spec for it there. but the idea was to annotate the isntance via the flavor or instance metadta wiht lifecycle:premtable=ture | |
| 15:51:45 | winiciusallan[m] | others from CERN and nectar-rc use aardvak | |
| 15:52:05 | sean-k-mooney | then have a new goal for permation and 1-n stragies for how to dop it | |
| 15:52:38 | winiciusallan[m] | sean-k-mooney: +1 with this approach. this is how the first spec was written on nova | |
| 15:53:26 | sean-k-mooney | so the firction with doing this is nova is https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/project-scope.html#no-more-orchestration and https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/project-scope.html#no-more-orchestration | |
| 15:53:26 | winiciusallan[m] | probably different strategies for how to find the best instance to preempt and also being possible to extend a custom strategy | |
| 15:53:31 | winiciusallan[m] | sounds good | |
| 15:54:01 | sean-k-mooney | we have basicly said we do not want to build complex orchstration logic in nova or optimise for batch processing | |
| 15:54:16 | sean-k-mooney | but we want to make sure that higher level service can express the policy on top | |
| 15:54:35 | sean-k-mooney | which is where aardvark or watcher can play a role | |