| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-12-19 | |||
| 16:04:57 | sshnaidm | :) | |
| 16:05:03 | elmiko | you need to add api-sig | |
| 16:05:14 | gtema | #startmeeting api-sig | |
| 16:05:15 | openstack | Meeting started Thu Dec 19 16:05:14 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gtema. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | |
| 16:05:16 | openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | |
| 16:05:18 | openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'api_sig' | |
| 16:05:20 | elmiko | \o/ | |
| 16:05:32 | gtema | cool, I could do this | |
| 16:05:35 | sshnaidm | gtema, thanks | |
| 16:05:42 | sshnaidm | #chair sshnaidm | |
| 16:05:47 | elmiko | i think sshnaidm could as well, just missed the name | |
| 16:05:57 | gtema | #chair sshnaidm | |
| 16:05:58 | openstack | Current chairs: gtema sshnaidm | |
| 16:06:08 | sshnaidm | oh, great | |
| 16:06:10 | gtema | #chair elmiko | |
| 16:06:10 | openstack | Current chairs: elmiko gtema sshnaidm | |
| 16:06:29 | gtema | it's fun to talk to bot | |
| 16:06:33 | sshnaidm | tbh, we have a few topics only | |
| 16:06:42 | elmiko | haha, it's more activity than we usually get gtema ;) | |
| 16:06:55 | gtema | yey, behold | |
| 16:07:03 | sshnaidm | #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-ansible-modules | |
| 16:07:24 | sshnaidm | I've sent a mail about movign modules http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-December/011597.html | |
| 16:07:24 | sshnaidm | Need to decide finally about the strategy | |
| 16:07:43 | sshnaidm | we've got the answer from mordred only | |
| 16:07:51 | gtema | well yeah. I thought we actually agreed on the strategy | |
| 16:08:00 | gtema | so I found nothing I could add | |
| 16:08:11 | gtema | except - yes, there would be changes | |
| 16:08:22 | gtema | I mean changes in modules | |
| 16:08:42 | sshnaidm | so nobody objected to that mail, I can assume everybody is agreed | |
| 16:08:45 | gtema | and yes - we must stay compatible and not break users | |
| 16:08:51 | sshnaidm | or just not present :) | |
| 16:09:30 | gtema | well, there is no question in the email. There are things we discussed and things to consider | |
| 16:09:34 | sshnaidm | so each module will be treated separately, some of them will be deprecated, some not | |
| 16:09:36 | gtema | I agree to them | |
| 16:10:05 | sshnaidm | for keeping them backward compatible we'll need good testing, just to remember | |
| 16:10:09 | gtema | yes, kinda. We do a rename and maintain backward-compatibility through botmeta | |
| 16:10:38 | gtema | ironic modules might be replaced (new + deprecation of old) completely | |
| 16:10:44 | sshnaidm | and good testing is not what we have currently, also to remember.. | |
| 16:11:02 | sshnaidm | gtema, yeah, I think so | |
| 16:11:09 | gtema | that is for sure. I am still thinking how we can enable testing in the new repo | |
| 16:11:11 | sshnaidm | they are out of sync.. | |
| 16:11:31 | sshnaidm | gtema, we have pep and old ci job there in patches | |
| 16:11:44 | sshnaidm | later we'll need to work on that more of course | |
| 16:12:10 | sshnaidm | I think we agreed also not to change anything in 2.9 | |
| 16:12:25 | sshnaidm | for not to sync them manually | |
| 16:12:38 | gtema | well, 2.9 is out in the wild anyway, so we can't change anything there | |
| 16:12:57 | sshnaidm | gtema, I mean via github PRs to ansible upstream | |
| 16:13:05 | sshnaidm | or via backports | |
| 16:13:17 | gtema | yes | |
| 16:13:34 | sshnaidm | next: Should we move modules with keeping history? | |
| 16:13:44 | gtema | there is anyway currently nobody watching for PRs (while I see there are discussions from the PR-contributors) | |
| 16:14:09 | sshnaidm | gtema, well, I submitted a few patches in last months | |
| 16:14:15 | gtema | I, personally, see no need in that, but also not object in keeping history | |
| 16:14:24 | gtema | I know | |
| 16:14:29 | sshnaidm | I'd like to keep the history tbh is possible | |
| 16:14:36 | sshnaidm | s/is/if/ | |
| 16:14:54 | sshnaidm | it helps to understand the logic of changes | |
| 16:14:58 | gtema | yeah, this is nice "if" | |
| 16:15:19 | gtema | but anyway for history you can always refer to Ansible itself | |
| 16:15:27 | sshnaidm | gtema, right | |
| 16:15:41 | sshnaidm | - Should we move now and not to wait till Jan? | |
| 16:15:56 | sshnaidm | I think it's obvious we need to wait | |
| 16:16:00 | gtema | hmm, | |
| 16:16:15 | gtema | from what I see there are currently nobody except us here now | |
| 16:16:22 | sshnaidm | we will need gundalow that is in PTO to make changes in Ansible itself, botmeta etc | |
| 16:16:28 | gtema | and we "agreed" to do this beginning of Jan | |
| 16:16:32 | sshnaidm | yeah | |
| 16:17:20 | gtema | let's better wait for Jan. I don't want to touch this now and instead enjoy calm time at work | |
| 16:17:30 | sshnaidm | agree | |
| 16:17:35 | sshnaidm | - python 2-3 compatibility | |
| 16:17:51 | gtema | this is nice | |
| 16:17:56 | sshnaidm | I think pabelanger wrote about it: technically should follow ansible engine, which is p26 / py27 / py35 / py36 / py37 / py38 | |
| 16:18:00 | gtema | we just "dropped" py2 tests in sdk | |
| 16:18:12 | sshnaidm | or maybe not pabelanger.. people, put your names please in etherpad notes! | |
| 16:18:25 | gtema | but in ansible modules themselves I don't think we have some weird stuff | |
| 16:19:03 | sshnaidm | gtema, that's interesting, if Ansible runs on 2.7 and openstacksdk supports 3 only | |
| 16:19:11 | gtema | so actually technically saying we can't guarantee anymore, that any new SDK release will support py2 | |
| 16:19:26 | gtema | ansible runs on py3 as well | |
| 16:19:46 | sshnaidm | gtema, I take the worst case when somebody run it on 2.7 host | |
| 16:19:56 | gtema | and sdk<=0.39.0 guarantee py2 compat | |
| 16:20:14 | gtema | it will work now | |
| 16:20:28 | sshnaidm | gtema, we won't freeze sdk reqs I think | |
| 16:20:33 | gtema | but not guaranteed to be working with SDK=0.40.0 | |
| 16:20:59 | gtema | no, we only have a dep in modules themselves | |
| 16:21:07 | sshnaidm | so I think we may not to support 2.7 hosts.. | |
| 16:21:10 | gtema | as min_version | |
| 16:21:54 | gtema | with just 12 days left until EOL - we need to push people. And we still do this gently | |
| 16:22:15 | gtema | we havn't started removing support for py2, we just stopped verifying it | |
| 16:22:54 | gtema | and I know myself how it is - myself having still platforms with py2 only | |
| 16:23:14 | gtema | so we will definitely not start in the near future in SDK to drop py2 compat things | |
| 16:23:16 | sshnaidm | gtema, well, yeah, and ansible claims for 2.6 support btw | |
| 16:23:24 | sshnaidm | it will be interesting | |
| 16:24:09 | gtema | I'm tired of those crappy things. Let's just leave it as it is and enjoy watching what will happen | |
| 16:24:20 | sshnaidm | gtema, :D | |
| 16:24:36 | sshnaidm | I'll try to wrap up | |
| 16:24:59 | sshnaidm | and get some ansible folks opinions maybe, would be great to get rid off 2.7 of course | |
| 16:25:26 | sshnaidm | any other topics to discuss? | |
| 16:26:02 | gtema | actually not for me. I am "waiting" for the release/test jobs | |
| 16:26:13 | sshnaidm | ok, great | |
| 16:26:13 | gtema | I think this should be addressed next | |