| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2022-06-30 | |||
| 11:16:14 | gtema | Going on train in few hours, will have a look. Sounds great if that really helps | |
| 12:07:54 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add support for CRUD operations for QoS minimum packet rate rule https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/810559 | |
| 12:19:53 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: block storage: Add support for group type specs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/847579 | |
| 12:19:53 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: block storage: Add support for the Group resource https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/782013 | |
| 12:19:54 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: block storage: Add support for the GroupSnapshot resource https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/781163 | |
| 12:20:01 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: docs: Add missing docs for block storage v3 proxy APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/848263 | |
| 12:20:01 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: WIP: block storage: Add update_volume proxy method https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/848264 | |
| 12:22:31 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: docs: Add missing docs for block storage v3 proxy APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/848263 | |
| 12:22:32 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: block storage: Add support for group type specs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/847579 | |
| 12:22:32 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: block storage: Add support for the Group resource https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/782013 | |
| 12:22:33 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: block storage: Add support for the GroupSnapshot resource https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/781163 | |
| 12:22:39 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: block storage: Add update_volume proxy method https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/848264 | |
| 12:34:18 | opendevreview | Ananya proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Moves stack module from cloud to proxy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/848266 | |
| 13:24:53 | opendevreview | Rafael Castillo proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Updates security group rule for latest sdk https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/846830 | |
| 13:42:29 | lajoskatona | Hi, shall I ask if there is a plan for new openstacksdk release recently? | |
| 13:47:52 | gtema | Maybe in few weeks. Something you need? | |
| 13:50:35 | lajoskatona | gtema: thanks, no, this morning when I checked all Networking things were in and ready for release | |
| 13:51:01 | lajoskatona | gtema: just asked to have an idea when we can expect it :-) | |
| 13:51:20 | lajoskatona | gtema: and another question, will the release be 1.0.0? | |
| 13:52:28 | gtema | No, it will be most likely 0.99.1 or 0.100.0 there are still few things to polish out but I had not enough time to work on them. So it is something like 1.9.0rc2 | |
| 13:53:10 | lajoskatona | gtema: thanks | |
| 13:53:23 | gtema | Wlcm | |
| 13:53:55 | gtema | Actually ensuring vpnaas is in is one of the things to finish | |
| 14:50:29 | opendevreview | Rafael Castillo proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Updates security group rule for latest sdk https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/846830 | |
| 15:13:35 | diablo_rojo | gtema, stephenfin... do you want a popup team for the OSC/SDK work? | |
| 15:14:11 | diablo_rojo | I feel like a list of all the gaps per project would be a better place to start? But thats just my perspective. | |
| 15:14:27 | stephenfin | Depends. What will it involve/what benefits will it have? | |
| 15:14:48 | diablo_rojo | stephenfin, IMHO its just more meetings and not actually more help lol | |
| 15:14:52 | diablo_rojo | but I could be wrong. | |
| 15:15:18 | diablo_rojo | stephenfin, if at some point you would be willing to walk through how you generated the Cinder list, I can help get the others together. | |
| 15:15:28 | gtema | I feel sharing your opinion diablo_rojo | |
| 15:15:42 | stephenfin | Yeah, that's what I was concerned about. Oh well | |
| 15:18:47 | diablo_rojo | They didn't listen to me when I said that its a very small team that prioritizes work over admin + organization :) | |
| 15:18:57 | diablo_rojo | (rightfully so in my opinion) | |
| 15:19:21 | diablo_rojo | And I havent done as good a job helping as I would like to, but I figure if I can do the admin so you don't have to, that's good too? | |
| 15:19:46 | gtema | Yes, that might be an option | |
| 15:20:14 | gtema | (sorry, being in train through EU therefore internet lags) | |
| 15:20:58 | diablo_rojo | gtema, no worries at all | |
| 16:39:10 | diablo_rojo | stephenfin, would you have time next week to go over how you generated the cinder list with me? | |
| 16:39:17 | diablo_rojo | arne_wiebalck, maybe would want to come too? | |
| 16:40:55 | arne_wiebalck | stephenfin: diablo_rojo: we have someone starting next week and needed to find an assignment, having a list of low-hanging OSC/SDK tasks would be very handy now | |
| 16:41:37 | arne_wiebalck | along the lines of what was discussed at the summit: need organisations to come with resources to help implement the gaps | |
| 16:50:32 | diablo_rojo | arne_wiebalck, they can use the cinder one for now | |
| 16:50:40 | diablo_rojo | and then we can work on building out the others | |
| 16:51:11 | diablo_rojo | arne_wiebalck, I can also tag all the open reviews left from previous students if they wanted to pick those up and finish them | |
| 16:51:18 | diablo_rojo | 'fair game' or something | |
| 19:48:45 | arne_wiebalck | diablo_rojo: thanks, do you have a link to the cinder one (or the others), so that we can have a look? | |
| 20:50:27 | opendevreview | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/ansible-collections-openstack master: Add SDK logging option for openstack ansible collections. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collections-openstack/+/844559 | |
| #openstack-sdks - 2022-07-01 | |||
| 09:30:32 | opendevreview | Dr. Jens Harbott proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: DNM: Test neutron segments fix https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/848397 | |
| 09:31:11 | frickler | ralonsoh: ^^ I hope my idea to run multiple copies of the job in one patch works | |
| 09:31:35 | ralonsoh | it does, I've done it before | |
| 09:47:45 | stephenfin | diablo_rojo_phone: Sure, I can do that. tl;dr though, I just ran 'cinder --help' with sequential versions of 'OS_VOLUME_API_VERSION' and did a side-by-side comparison. Not particularly clever 😅 | |
| 09:48:03 | stephenfin | gtema: Care to look at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/844268 (and maybe the follow-ups, but they're less important) | |
| 09:48:07 | stephenfin | *? | |
| 09:48:27 | gtema | going to look right now | |
| 09:49:32 | gtema | okay, so upstream Friday can finally go on | |
| 09:50:32 | gtema | we just maybe should fix networking tests first, cause they will bring us to endless rechecks again | |
| 09:55:50 | frickler | gtema: my local testing makes me rather optimistic on ralonsoh's fix in neutron that is being tested in 848397 | |
| 09:57:17 | gtema | yes, that would be awesome | |
| 09:57:53 | gtema | and I see neutron fix is eventually going to land in 1-2 hours | |
| 11:19:15 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/python-openstackclient master: Fix: create image from volume command https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/844268 | |
| 12:55:52 | viks__ | hi, i'm using python openstacksdk.. why project object returned by `conn.identity.projects` does not contain custom property key-value pair? | |
| 13:27:10 | opendevreview | Cyril Roelandt proposed openstack/python-openstackclient stable/yoga: Fix: create image from volume command https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/848446 | |
| 13:35:10 | opendevreview | Cyril Roelandt proposed openstack/python-openstackclient stable/wallaby: openstack image create: honor protection/visibility flags https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/848448 | |
| 13:35:11 | opendevreview | Cyril Roelandt proposed openstack/python-openstackclient stable/wallaby: Fix: create image from volume command https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/848449 | |
| 13:55:41 | opendevreview | Dr. Jens Harbott proposed openstack/python-openstackclient master: Add support for CRUD operations for QoS minimum packet rate rule https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/810559 | |
| 14:48:25 | stephenfin | gtema: Could we include the python-openstackclient-core group in the python-openstackclient-stable-maint group, like we do for openstacksdk? | |
| 14:48:49 | stephenfin | I'd like to be able to review croelandt's changes above ^ | |
| 14:49:16 | gtema | looking | |
| 14:49:34 | stephenfin | You're in the latter, so you should be able to add python-openstackclient-core to Included Groups here https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/83af131761f12c002cab329fe1a1ea7ffdbaf7cd,members | |
| 14:50:01 | stephenfin | We probably want to drop Steve, Lee and Dean too | |
| 14:50:47 | gtema | I remembered now: only admins can do this. I myself cant change the group | |
| 14:51:42 | stephenfin | gtema: By admins do you mean fungi or clarkb? | |
| 14:52:05 | gtema | yeah, l remember asking fungi to add myself into this group | |
| 14:52:56 | fungi | https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/python-openstackclient-stable-maint | |
| 14:53:10 | fungi | "owners: stable-maint-core" | |
| 14:53:32 | fungi | https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/stable-maint-core,members | |
| 14:53:49 | stephenfin | TIL that group owners were a thing in Gerrit. Every day a new adventure | |
| 14:54:05 | fungi | that's the list of people who decide to add/remove anyone from python-openstackclient-stable-maint | |
| 14:54:49 | gtema | hmm, and is this how we want it to be? | |
| 14:54:50 | stephenfin | fungi++ Thanks, I didn't know that | |
| 14:55:06 | fungi | gtema: that's probably something to discuss with the openstack stable maintainers and tc | |
| 14:55:09 | stephenfin | diablo_rojo_phone is in there (via Release Managers). Now is diablo_rojo_phone around? 🤔 | |
| 14:56:40 | fungi | it used to be that the openstack stable maintenance team wanted to be able to confirm people who were added to per-project stable maintenance groups were familiar with the stable backport review policies for openstack before adding them, so the release managers tend to not get involved in that. not sure whether that's still the case | |
| 14:56:48 | stephenfin | gtema: fungi: Yeah, I note that at least octavia-stable-maint and openstacksdk-stable-maint are owned by themselves | |
| 14:57:08 | stephenfin | fungi: I suspect today we'll take stable cores where we can find them :) | |
| 14:57:18 | stephenfin | openstacksdk https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/1b6ed81aaf8ad4ab52cc54284be7199607dcaa8d | |
| 14:57:19 | fungi | i think it had to do with whether the project asserted stable:follows-policy | |
| 14:57:24 | stephenfin | octavia https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/e93320d644e6a71c904d06ec6e379efb541f6dd8 | |
| 14:57:38 | stephenfin | oh, aren't those policies gone now? | |
| 14:57:49 | stephenfin | maybe it was another thing to do with badges | |
| 14:58:02 | fungi | right, which is why i don't know what the current approval workflow is, hence my suggestion to check with the tc | |
| 14:58:46 | stephenfin | mistral-stable-maint, neutron-lib-stable-maint, neutron-vpnaas-stable-maint and karbor-stable-maint too. Likely more (those are all I checked) | |
| 14:58:52 | stephenfin | fungi: I'll post to openstack-discuss now | |
| 14:58:55 | fungi | ideally, if stable-maint-core no longer needs to be an oversight body for per-project stable-maint groups, then we'd go through and make all those groups self-owned at the same time rather than dealing with a lot of one-off requests for them | |
| 14:59:07 | johnsom | Octavia asserts stable:follows-policy | |
| 14:59:32 | johnsom | The special group was a hold over from when we were starting the project up from scratch | |
| 15:00:48 | fungi | yeah, far enough back in time, there weren't per-project stable-maint groups and instead the central openstack-stable-maint members handled all backports, then they started delegating some of it to project-specific reviewers as long as they were familiar with and agreed to follow openstack's backport policies | |
| 15:01:31 | johnsom | Yep, that is kind of where we landed | |
| 15:01:51 | fungi | now that there isn't much of a central stable-maint group any longer, i think the idea is to just hand that over to the per-project groups, but it would be nice to have that clearly asserted somewhere and then update all the existing groups to that new model | |