Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-sdks - 2019-12-09
18:55:25 sshnaidm mordred, ok, anyway we assigned all work to you iirc :D
18:59:03 mordred :)
20:54:48 openstackgerrit Sagi Shnaidman proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: DNM: test job https://review.opendev.org/698085
21:15:41 iokiwi Cheers mordred and eanderson I will try use con.create_volume instead
21:25:47 mordred iokiwi: sorry for the confusion there - it's sadly a two-step process which isn't modelled well down at the resource layer
21:29:26 iokiwi No worries - I can deal with that. Thanks for the help
#openstack-sdks - 2019-12-10
06:32:45 openstackgerrit Shogo Saito proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Adding basic implementation for Accelerator(Cyborg) https://review.opendev.org/679914
08:26:51 openstackgerrit Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add support for setting and removing tags from server instance https://review.opendev.org/697674
10:18:51 openstackgerrit Sagi Shnaidman proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: DNM: test job https://review.opendev.org/698085
19:06:30 cmurphy dtroyer: next time you have a few minutes, could i ask you to add https://review.opendev.org/677857 to your review queue? there's an open question on what the command name should be
#openstack-sdks - 2019-12-11
14:30:05 openstackgerrit Jens Harbott (frickler) proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Add dns_publish_fixed_ip attribute to subnets https://review.opendev.org/679833
16:19:41 openstackgerrit Michael Johnson proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Switch to using osc_lib.utils.tags https://review.opendev.org/662864
#openstack-sdks - 2019-12-12
15:59:09 sshnaidm hello everyone
15:59:23 dtantsur we're about to hijack this slot again \o/
16:00:21 sshnaidm etherpad is here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-ansible-modules
16:00:31 sshnaidm please add topic for discussions there
16:00:40 sshnaidm dtantsur, can you run the bot please?
16:00:48 dtantsur #startmeeting api-sig
16:00:49 openstack Meeting started Thu Dec 12 16:00:48 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dtantsur. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:50 openstack Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:53 openstack The meeting name has been set to 'api_sig'
16:00:59 dtantsur #chair sshnaidm elmiko
16:01:00 openstack Current chairs: dtantsur elmiko sshnaidm
16:01:05 sshnaidm dtantsur, thanks!
16:01:15 sshnaidm o/
16:01:26 dtantsur #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-ansible-modules agenda
16:01:38 dtantsur anyone else here? :)
16:01:42 gtema me
16:02:53 dtantsur a nice private party :)
16:02:57 gtema sure
16:03:00 gtema as usual
16:03:06 sshnaidm mnaser, mordred, odyssey4me
16:03:11 gtema last week was weird - too much people :D
16:03:18 sshnaidm just calling people from etherpad :)
16:03:21 odyssey4me o/
16:03:27 sshnaidm holidays I assume
16:03:51 gtema it's tooooooo early for holidays, who will do the work
16:04:03 sshnaidm so I've sent a mail to legal-discussion: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2019-December/thread.html
16:04:15 sshnaidm it's the only thread there
16:04:48 sshnaidm got responses that we'd better to keep developing in ansible sig repo under GPL
16:05:41 sshnaidm any other opinions about that? ^
16:05:45 odyssey4me hmm, is that an OK thing for openstack repositories?
16:05:50 mordred ohai!
16:06:05 gtema well, reading inside I would say there are no answers (mordred doesn't count)
16:06:10 sshnaidm odyssey4me, well, it's not really openstack repository
16:06:38 sshnaidm gtema, yeah, responses were from people of this meeting actually :)
16:07:10 mordred yeah - although while I don't count - the takeaway I've gotten from past encounters is that as along as it's not part of "the software" called openstack, it's ok
16:07:10 dtantsur it seems that we can host GPL code, just not make it official openstack delivarables
16:07:18 mordred yah
16:07:26 odyssey4me is that a problem?
16:07:39 sshnaidm I'd like to know what it blocks for us
16:07:42 mordred nope. should be fine. this is an effort of a sig
16:08:00 mordred I don't thnk it's blocks anything. ansible is already GPL
16:08:00 dtantsur nothing blocking. just a bit unfortunate that we cannot proudly call these modules official
16:08:03 sshnaidm what is consequences of not having this as deliverable?
16:08:13 odyssey4me we have imports both ways, right - the module imports ansible (GPL) stuff, and also imports openstack (Apache) stuff
16:08:15 mordred so anything that would use these modules must by definition be ok consuming gpl software
16:08:22 dtantsur sshnaidm: no promotion on openstack.org?
16:08:38 mordred I don't think it's a matter of not being able to call these modules official
16:08:49 dtantsur one things that I think is important re licensing:
16:08:50 sshnaidm mordred, this won't change anyway, we don't relicense them
16:08:51 mordred it's that they can't be part of an OpenStack release
16:09:01 mordred which they wouldn't be anyway, since that makes no sense
16:09:05 dtantsur if we write something that looks like logic independent of ansible, we should better put it somewhere else
16:09:16 dtantsur otherwise we won't be able to easily reuse it in other parts of openstack
16:09:17 mordred dtantsur: right. and that's stuff we tend to put in sdk
16:09:22 dtantsur e.g. it will be troublesome to put it to sdk
16:09:23 dtantsur exactly
16:09:31 pabelanger right, this should be the ansible community openstack collection
16:09:34 dtantsur last time I proposed that any logic goes to sdk
16:09:35 mordred (which is one of the reasons we have sdk and are so adamant about butting things in there)
16:09:40 mordred ++
16:09:54 odyssey4me yep, the thinner the module is as a layer - the better
16:09:55 mordred the modules should be thin glue code between the ansible module structure and logic entities in sdk
16:09:59 odyssey4me *modules
16:10:02 mordred this will be easier to accomplish with the modules in gerrit now
16:10:12 dtantsur #agreed Try to put most of the logic into openstacksdk, keep the ansible modules as thin glue
16:10:19 dtantsur right?
16:10:20 sshnaidm having lite modules with sdk logic is totally fine for me too, but here comes question of compatibility between versions
16:10:23 mordred yah
16:10:37 mordred the sdk supports all versions of openstack
16:10:43 mordred so that direction is fine
16:10:43 dtantsur sshnaidm: any logic code is anyway tied to openstack, not to ansible
16:11:10 sshnaidm dtantsur, right, agree
16:11:17 Shrews yes, there is no reason to not continue that abstraction/separation. also, hi!
16:11:20 mordred the version support matrix is then for different versions of ansible - maybe something changes in newer versions of ansible and we need to update the module interface for that
16:11:34 dtantsur wow, I wild Shrews appears :)
16:11:39 dtantsur * a wild
16:11:41 dtantsur (sigh)
16:11:45 Shrews i'm tame now
16:11:58 gtema atm collection does not define dependency to Ansible (requires version)
16:12:16 gtema so assume this should not happen in near future
16:12:29 dtantsur gundalow: ^^^?
16:12:32 mordred yah. so hopefully we can have our modules support all extant versions of ansible too
16:12:40 sshnaidm I hope won't happen at all
16:12:45 mordred (even if the modules have to have some if logic in them to do so)
16:12:55 mordred but the module interface has been *VERY* stable for the past several years
16:13:06 odyssey4me I guess we're going to have to limit the collection version support for Ansible. Ansible does tend to make pretty heavy changes from time to time.
16:13:07 gtema don't kill me: should we introduce support for microversions in Ansible?
16:13:10 mordred the only main systemic changes have been around things like docstsring formats

Earlier   Later