| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-12-05 | |||
| 16:54:28 | sshnaidm | ok, but modules that don't have a parallel I think we can start with Apache2 | |
| 16:54:29 | dtantsur | I mean, legally claim, we all here believe you :) | |
| 16:54:49 | dtantsur | probably? I'd really bring it to legal-discuss | |
| 16:54:54 | gtema | ok, time is running out. Summary? | |
| 16:55:03 | dtantsur | gtema: we had a few #agreed | |
| 16:55:09 | gtema | I would also vote for raising | |
| 16:55:17 | gtema | in legal-discuss | |
| 16:55:21 | dtantsur | #action sshnaidm To raise the licensing topic on legal-discuss | |
| 16:55:23 | sshnaidm | #action to figure out which license to use for new developed modules in openstack collection, | |
| 16:55:23 | dtantsur | correct? :) | |
| 16:55:32 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, ack | |
| 16:55:34 | dtantsur | you forgot <who> | |
| 16:55:35 | dtantsur | #undo | |
| 16:55:36 | openstack | Removing item from minutes: #action to figure out which license to use for new developed modules in openstack collection, | |
| 16:55:44 | dtantsur | okay, now we have one item | |
| 16:55:59 | dtantsur | anything else? | |
| 16:55:59 | sshnaidm | great | |
| 16:56:03 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: tox: Keeping going with docs https://review.opendev.org/692503 | |
| 16:56:14 | sshnaidm | wanted to ask about versioning of modules | |
| 16:56:27 | sshnaidm | I don't think we need branches as openstack releases, right? | |
| 16:56:57 | sshnaidm | should we just keep them compatible as much as possible? in case we have differences in openstacksdk for example | |
| 16:57:33 | sshnaidm | any strong opinions about it? | |
| 16:57:50 | dtantsur | I guess we need to match ansible? | |
| 16:57:56 | gtema | I think current version checking in modules is sufficient. So no need for openstack releases from my POV | |
| 16:58:01 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, why? | |
| 16:58:24 | dtantsur | to allow combining them as gundalow mentioned? | |
| 16:58:42 | dtantsur | SDK has stable branches, OSC too (?) | |
| 16:58:46 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, sorry, I missed it, to combine? | |
| 16:58:48 | dtantsur | it feels like the modules could | |
| 16:58:50 | gtema | at least "API" for the collections structure need to be kept in sync with Ansible | |
| 16:58:59 | sshnaidm | gtema, yeah, that's right | |
| 16:59:04 | dtantsur | sshnaidm: a distribution of ansible with all collections | |
| 16:59:08 | dtantsur | right | |
| 16:59:44 | sshnaidm | yeah, I think we agree on keeping them compatible with ansible | |
| 16:59:55 | sshnaidm | otherwise it won't work :) | |
| 17:00:01 | dtantsur | exactly :) | |
| 17:00:14 | dtantsur | I guess we need to decide about stable branches | |
| 17:00:16 | dtantsur | probably next time | |
| 17:00:17 | sshnaidm | #agreed to keep modules compatible with Ansible collections API | |
| 17:00:26 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, yep | |
| 17:00:34 | sshnaidm | ok, thanks all for participation! | |
| 17:00:42 | sshnaidm | next Thu same time same place | |
| 17:00:44 | dtantsur | thanks, and thanks elmiko for tolerating us! | |
| 17:00:56 | dtantsur | #endmeeting | |
| 17:00:57 | gtema | otherwise it is too silent :D | |
| 17:00:58 | openstack | Meeting ended Thu Dec 5 17:00:56 2019 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:00:59 | openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_sig/2019/api_sig.2019-12-05-16.00.html | |
| 17:01:00 | openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_sig/2019/api_sig.2019-12-05-16.00.txt | |
| 17:01:01 | openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_sig/2019/api_sig.2019-12-05-16.00.log.html | |
| 17:01:20 | sshnaidm | yeah, we fixed that) | |
| 17:02:46 | elmiko | dtantsur: gladly =) | |
| 17:04:10 | gundalow | Good to chat everybody, please do shout out if there is anything else | |
| 17:04:22 | gtema | thanks gundalow | |
| 17:36:46 | gundalow | dtantsur|afk: sshnaidm another option could be `redhat.openstack`. I think this comes down to how many OpenStack Collections you think there maybe | |
| 17:39:45 | sshnaidm | gundalow, mm.. but our projects are community wide, not limited to redhat | |
| 17:47:41 | gundalow | sshnaidm: nod, that's a fair point | |
| 18:04:23 | mordred | yeah - I would hope we only have one openstack collection | |
| 18:04:33 | mordred | also - sorry I missed the meeting - I have plague today | |
| 18:26:11 | elmiko | hope you feel better soon mordred =) | |
| 18:26:50 | mordred | elmiko: thanks! nothing says the holidays like laying around groaning | |
| 18:27:21 | sshnaidm | gundalow, is there somewhere written about plans to move modules in 2.10? The roadmap looks a little bit empty https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/devel/roadmap/ROADMAP_2_10.html | |
| 18:42:53 | gundalow | sshnaidm: we are working on comma at the moment. I expect it to be out in the next week or so | |
| 18:59:39 | elmiko | mordred: heh, totally | |
| 19:08:50 | ekultails | Ansible 2.10 should really be 3.0 with all of this restructuring going on. Just my two cents. | |
| 19:11:44 | pabelanger | I'd be interested in how the collection release process will work | |
| 19:11:47 | pabelanger | eg: | |
| 19:12:10 | pabelanger | what will be the version number of this first collection release, targetted for 2.10 | |
| 19:44:51 | ekultails | I can't imagine every Collection aligning with Ansible's life cycle. I guess that is both a pro and a con that a Collection could push out updates independent of Ansible. | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-12-06 | |||
| 11:11:38 | openstackgerrit | Daniel Bengtsson proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Stop testing python 2 in tox and zuul. https://review.opendev.org/695427 | |
| 15:06:04 | openstackgerrit | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add support for setting and removing tags from server instance https://review.opendev.org/697674 | |
| 15:17:31 | melwitt | dtroyer: hi, I was wondering what your thoughts are on backporting https://review.opendev.org/691459 and https://review.opendev.org/691460 to stable/queens? just trying to get some feedback about whether they're wanted upstream before looking at downstream backports. thanks | |
| 16:04:40 | efried | mordred, dtroyer: on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/695427/ are you ready with a quick reapproval if I fix up the commit message? | |
| 16:05:16 | mordred | efried: ++ | |
| 16:06:38 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Stop testing python 2 in tox and zuul. https://review.opendev.org/695427 | |
| 16:06:59 | efried | mordred: done ^ | |
| 16:11:28 | mordred | efried: re +2 from me | |
| 16:11:36 | efried | thanks | |
| 16:11:56 | efried | I guess somebody ought to go fix that other test... | |
| 17:00:23 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/cliff master: Switch to Ussuri jobs https://review.opendev.org/691148 | |
| 17:00:23 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/cliff master: Add contributors link to readme https://review.opendev.org/689293 | |
| 17:35:58 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/shade master: Switch to Ussuri jobs https://review.opendev.org/691162 | |
| 17:40:10 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: update OVH vendor entry https://review.opendev.org/692961 | |
| 17:53:29 | openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: update OVH vendor entry https://review.opendev.org/692961 | |
| 20:49:31 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: update OVH vendor entry https://review.opendev.org/692961 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-12-09 | |||
| 04:35:38 | iokiwi | Bug when creating bootable volume via SDK? http://paste.openstack.org/show/787293/ | |
| 04:36:50 | iokiwi | neither is_bootable=True nor bootable=True results in a bootable volume. | |
| 04:37:20 | iokiwi | Creating bootable volume via openstack client works fine though | |
| 05:03:47 | eandersson | iokiwi what is the output if you use bootable=True instead, identical? | |
| 05:05:09 | eandersson | but I see the bug | |
| 05:05:30 | eandersson | https://github.com/openstack/openstacksdk/blob/140eaf7547cf9f557fdd119bf278c41f7b49e1e2/openstack/cloud/_block_storage.py#L242 | |
| 05:05:59 | eandersson | When bootable is set, the volume is just return, but not normalized. | |
| 05:06:12 | eandersson | mordred ^ | |
| 05:07:07 | eandersson | So don't think is_bootable could ever be true? | |
| 09:56:47 | iokiwi | eandersson yes I tried bootable=True | |
| 10:00:48 | iokiwi | Yes, the volume will go to status 'CREATING' first so that condition will probably never be met. But I dont see a way via the sdk to set the volume bootable after the volume has been created | |
| 10:13:38 | iokiwi | Oh nevermind, I am inside the wait block. I am not sure what normalizing the volume means? | |
| 15:04:30 | mordred | eandersson: oh - yeah. that's unfortunate there | |
| 15:06:34 | mordred | eandersson: but iokiwi is using the resource layer | |
| 15:06:51 | mordred | iokiwi: can you try con.create_volume instead of con.block_storage.create_volume? | |
| 15:10:06 | mordred | or - alternately, if you want to use the resource layer - you need to get the Volume object back from that create call, then you need to update it with the bootable flag - like v.is_bootable = True ; v.commit(con.block_storage) | |