| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: [doc] Document venv rebuild for python_venv_build role https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/953493 | 00:11 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: [doc] Document venv rebuild for python_venv_build role https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/953493 | 00:11 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: [doc] Document venv rebuild for python_venv_build role https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/953493 | 00:25 |
| f0o | Hi, this is likely a super silly Q but my Ansible-Fu isnt good enough to figure it out; extra_volume_types is this _additive_ or _replacing_ the volume_type name from the key? | 10:18 |
| f0o | https://github.com/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_cinder/blob/eb01602ebcbcf58052665008fdb77022a2597634/defaults/main.yml#L294-L301 << will this create lvm, lvm_high_iops, lvm_low_iops or will it just create lvm_high_iops, lvm_low_iops | 10:19 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: [doc] Document venv rebuild for python_venv_build role https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/953493 | 10:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | f0o: hey | 10:55 |
| noonedeadpunk | it's adding iirc | 10:55 |
| noonedeadpunk | and you can't skip the "default" one so far, unless you just set `cinder_manage_volume_types: false` | 10:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | and skip that alltogether | 10:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | the reason for that is that openstack ansible collection never had a working module for that | 10:57 |
| f0o | Awesome! | 11:00 |
| f0o | Thanks :) | 11:00 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts stable/2025.1: Remove COPR repo for python3-lxc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts/+/960255 | 11:46 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-os_cinder master: Generate certificates only for API hosts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_cinder/+/960257 | 12:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | damiandabrowski: I wonder if we might have the same issue in other places as well ^ | 12:13 |
| damiandabrowski | ouh | 12:37 |
| damiandabrowski | nice catch! | 12:37 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client master: Allow to set conditions on components https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client/+/960268 | 14:13 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client master: Allow to set conditions on components https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-ceph_client/+/960268 | 14:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | #startmeeting openstack_ansible_meeting | 15:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Sep 9 15:01:11 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is noonedeadpunk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:01 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:01 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible_meeting' | 15:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic rollcall | 15:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 15:01 |
| damiandabrowski | hi! | 15:01 |
| * fungi has something for office hours | 15:01 | |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic office hours | 15:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: floor is yours :) | 15:05 |
| fungi | Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs: survey and metric analyses | 15:06 |
| fungi | i'll try to be quick, but there's a lot we dug into... for some background on openstack-wide metrics analysis see ildikov's most recent ml post from a couple of months back: | 15:06 |
| fungi | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/NTBNI7YIDCWBR6BTPEKVZIODWTVUIOXO/ BtG metrics analysis | 15:06 |
| fungi | also could be worthwhile to revisit her previous post in that thread going over the contributor and maintainer survey results (and anyone who hasn't filled those out for epoxy, please see if you can find a few minutes to do that!) | 15:06 |
| fungi | as a follow-up activity, we've been doing some team-specific analyses, focusing on about a dozen teams that had multiple survey responses | 15:06 |
| fungi | we're early in the process of analyzing these stats with a focus on improving the experience for maintainers and contributors, so for now this is probably a lot of stuff you already know, or at least confirming what you expected | 15:06 |
| fungi | a big part of this is establishing a baseline so that we can better gauge whether future attempts at improving have any observable impact, but we aren't at the point where we have much in the way of guidance or recommendations yet | 15:06 |
| fungi | we have plans to continue with this sort of surveying and metrics analysis over coming release cycles and have already drafted some updates for the flamingo versions; as for the initial results... | 15:07 |
| fungi | the contributor survey had 1 response for openstack ansible and the respondent self-identified as a new contributor who had contributed to at least one other open source project | 15:07 |
| fungi | feedback was polarized (either 1 or 4 out of 5) ranking actionable feedback from reviewers and usefulness of automated testing high, but low scores on timely reviews and basically all aspects of the contributor documentation | 15:07 |
| fungi | the one challenge they listed for contributing was a lack of familiarity with gerrit | 15:07 |
| fungi | the maintainer survey also had only 1 response so far, with more varied scoring (between 1 and 3 out of 5) the highest being for actionable feedback from reviewers and contributor documentation quality, lowest on timely reviewing again | 15:07 |
| fungi | the only contributing challenge reported by that maintainer was with getting review attention, and in reviewing changes for others they struggled with a lack of familiarity in some parts of the project | 15:07 |
| fungi | looking at metrics we gathered from gerrit for the past 5 development cycles, review activity has not been nearly as bad as the survey responses suggest, which i would chalk up to selection bias and negative experience outweighing positive | 15:07 |
| fungi | there was a fairly significant drop in the number of active maintainers and reviewers as well as change volume during the epoxy cycle compared to prior releases, so i don't know whether that might also have anything to do with it | 15:08 |
| fungi | interestingly, the median time to review nearly doubled from dalmatian to epoxy (bobcat was worse though) while the average (mean) time to review stayed roughly the same | 15:08 |
| fungi | on the other hand, the time to merge changes was about the same between the two cycles so the drop in maintainers and reviewers doesn't seem to have impacted that, probably owing to a similar drop in changes proposed | 15:08 |
| fungi | while it's hard to draw conclusions from such a small number of responses, some additional focus on revamping or updating the contributor documents, maybe leaning a bit omre into referring out to the general openstack contributor workflow docs might help | 15:09 |
| fungi | though hard to know if that was just a one-off impression in that survey response | 15:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | there's really a lot to unpack here | 15:09 |
| fungi | and as is probably obvious, trying to claw back some of the maintainer/reviewer activity, though i don't have great suggestions there yet | 15:10 |
| fungi | sorry, i know that's a pretty big info dump (i tried to pare it down as much as possible), and i'm happy to answer questions or take feedback either here in the meeting or any time after in #openstack-manila too | 15:10 |
| fungi | er, in #openstack-ansible i mean | 15:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | So lately we indeed have a decreased activity from core team regarding reviews. And my inner feeling that merge time should have increased at least this cycle in an observable way | 15:11 |
| fungi | keep in mind that this was observing the epoxy cycle activity, after the ptg we'll be doing flamingo analyses and surveys | 15:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | However when dealing with other projects in OpenStack, I'd estimate review time as above average on the boards still... | 15:12 |
| fungi | yes, it looked that way from the stats | 15:13 |
| fungi | slow review response has been just about universal in the survey responses for all teams | 15:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | and yes, this cycle we do have a huge focus on improving and re-working our documentation, which was historically not up to date | 15:14 |
| fungi | even though the stats for most teams suggest it's not all that bad | 15:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | so missing or absent documentation is being recognized as the problem. | 15:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | which I guess is imporant, that we also see our own issues and trying to address them | 15:15 |
| fungi | the psychology of it, i think, is that if you have 10 changes that merge quickly and 1 change that takes ages to get reviewer interest, you'll remember the one bad experience while forgetting the 10 good ones | 15:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | well. it could be as well, that you might have an expectation to get your bugfix merged and released by end of the week | 15:16 |
| fungi | the challenge with this initial round is that looking at these surveys as a stand-alone snapshot in time isn't terribly useful. comparing responses from one cycle to the next will be a lot more indicative of whether things are improving | 15:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | while it would take a week-two to just to land on master and then some time for backports | 15:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | does this survey also include contributions in form of bug reports? | 15:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | as how projects are dealing and some kind of stats for bug fixing would be really also interesting | 15:18 |
| fungi | currently the surveys have focused mostly on people proposing changes for review and maintainers reviewing proposed changes, since this effort came out of the tc's request for getting more openinfra member orgs to get involved in development and/or asking why they aren't | 15:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | which is fair. gotcha. | 15:19 |
| fungi | also the current rate of survey responses makes it hard to get any more granular | 15:19 |
| fungi | as i said, openstack ansible had a total of two survey responses (one for the contributor survey, one for the maintainer survey) | 15:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | I was just thinking/having an idea of transitioning people reporting bugs to contributors, and why does this happen so rarely | 15:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | for instance - because of missing knowledge, time, policies, etc | 15:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | just to spreatch survey audience a bit | 15:21 |
| fungi | so we're mostly trying to contrast and compare the very few survey responses with available contribution and review metrics | 15:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | *streatch | 15:21 |
| mgariepy | on issue with patches (from what i saw on other opensource contribution) is that quite often trying to ping the correct group/person to get stuff moving it really helpful. | 15:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | we probably indeed need to update our contributing guidelines and info on how to contact the team with Matrix bridge setup | 15:22 |
| fungi | yeah, some of the member orgs we heard from during early outreach were trying to fix bugs that they reported, but were having trouble getting their proposed fixes merged for various reasons (most of which boiled down to miscommunication both on their part and on the part of reviewers who engaged) | 15:22 |
| fungi | that wasn't for openstack ansible specifically though | 15:22 |
| fungi | mgariepy: definitely, one we were prompted to look at for nova sat unreviewed for a while until the proposer asked for help in #openstack-nova... in the middle of the night on december 26th | 15:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | I can recall that one.... | 15:24 |
| fungi | and then when they (unsurprisingly for most of us i'm sure) got no response there, they gave up | 15:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | I wonder if adding something from review stats, like average review time, to contributor docs may manage expectations | 15:25 |
| fungi | so knowing who to reach out to and how, but also sometimes when | 15:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | and improve overall feeling of time | 15:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | as more we talk, more it feels that it's unmatched expectations which impact the most | 15:25 |
| fungi | yeah, setting (realistic) expectations in documentation is great and something we're trying to encourage | 15:26 |
| fungi | and i agree, miscommunication around expectations is at the root of most of the specific cases we looked into | 15:26 |
| fungi | especially around prioritization of reviewing and development areas in projects | 15:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think also relatively recently on a cinder meeting there were bunch of driver maintainers who also were not really aware of review process, all asking at the beginning of the meeting for reviews, pretty much making it messy and hard to follow | 15:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | and then appeared there's some etherpad, which took me l,ike 10mins at least to find among prior meeting logs... | 15:28 |
| fungi | from a contributor perspective, it's things like how to know what the team is prioritizing, how (if possible) to get your work prioritized and/or participate in the prioritization decisions | 15:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | so eh... | 15:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | we have a long road as a community to be explicit about processes... | 15:28 |
| fungi | absolutely, this is nothing we're going to fix overnight | 15:29 |
| fungi | i'm hoping as a commuinity we can share ideas for what's already working well in some places, make incremental improvements over time, et cetera | 15:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | but that is really interesting info, and I think we can have couple of actionable items out of it | 15:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | I assume these averages from ML per-project specifically could be taken out of Bitergia relatively easily? | 15:30 |
| fungi | as for survey updates, we're adding questions about prioritization to the flamingo round too | 15:30 |
| fungi | noonedeadpunk: yes exactly, we pulled them straight from bitergia | 15:31 |
| fungi | though tried to avoid getting into comparing teams to each other since their challenges differ and any comparison would be unfair and possibly divisive | 15:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 15:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | eventually we have another issue about contributing docs | 15:33 |
| fungi | though in cases where teams had particularly positive results we've tried to dig into potential reasons, to see if there are any ideas or workflows that can be transplanted more widely | 15:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | which is that we have 2 of them | 15:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ansible/latest/contributors/contributing.html | 15:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | this one ^was added as part of community goal | 15:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ansible/latest/contributors/contribute.html | 15:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | and this one is historical, containing some extra info (potentially) | 15:34 |
| fungi | probably worth combining them and redirecting one to the other | 15:34 |
| fungi | anyway, that's all i had for now, didn't want to monopolize the entire meeting | 15:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think why I didn't do that, as the one from communty goal was having kinda template. And I treated it as a "exclusive" to bring alignment between projects | 15:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | but I think I need to revise this and indeed merge things together.... | 15:37 |
| fungi | been a while since i read through the goal text, but i thought it was more about making sure some specific details were consistently included by every project, not necessarily limiting what other information could be included there | 15:37 |
| fungi | though also it could link out to other pages as well | 15:37 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, will try to figure this out, as it's obviously a thing which brings some confusion at least | 15:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, cool | 15:38 |
| NeilHanlon | heya, sorry i am very late :) | 15:38 |
| NeilHanlon | at the airport right now | 15:38 |
| fungi | we left you a ton of scrollback to entertain you on your flight | 15:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | heh, no worries :) that's a good excuse NeilHanlon :) | 15:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 15:39 |
| fungi | hopefully lots of food for thought, at least for now | 15:39 |
| NeilHanlon | :) was sitting to work on my slides and remembered the time | 15:39 |
| NeilHanlon | speaking of, does anyone have real-world OpenStack/NVMe performance numbers they're able to share/point at for my reference? | 15:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | no, not really. 99% of our footprint is ceph | 15:40 |
| fungi | mnaser might? i recall him doing a lot of comparative benchmarking for local nvme storage on compute nodes in vexxhost | 15:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | so, epel has promoted python3-lxc for EL10, so now we finally can drop usage of NeilHanlon COPR | 15:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-lxc_hosts/+/959415 | 15:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | and with backport to epoxy, I think we should be able to tag 31.1.0 finally | 15:42 |
| * noonedeadpunk need to check for other waiting backport | 15:42 | |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_skyline/+/958970 | 15:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | is one would be nice to include though | 15:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | but I think it should be it | 15:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | on the dark side - there has been no progress with systemd-networkd addition to EPEL | 15:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | despite there were suggestions for co-maintenance, they were ignored so far | 15:45 |
| NeilHanlon | noonedeadpunk: well actually.. sorta looking at the intersection of Ceph and NVME, so if you're using nvme backed OSDs (a la BlueStore) i'm interested :D | 15:45 |
| NeilHanlon | i will ping rsc directly about the systemd thing | 15:45 |
| NeilHanlon | see if I can un-stick that | 15:45 |
| NeilHanlon | also i guess we should have a couple more packages for rocky 10 that mnasiadka requested -- the openvswitch/ovn and ceph squid repos | 15:46 |
| NeilHanlon | (from centos SIGs) | 15:46 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303892 | 15:46 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, while openvswitch/ovn are kinda required - I have not tested if centos sig versions will be working or not | 15:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | but ceph is known not to work for some time indeed. | 15:47 |
| NeilHanlon | yeah, i dunno the whole state either but I just got asked to provide the -release packages | 15:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | we do have nvme osds... will try to check if we have any statistically good performance data... | 15:48 |
| NeilHanlon | appreciate that if you can share! I have some of my own data but being able to back it up would be nice lol | 15:49 |
| mnasiadka | NeilHanlon: any idea when the compose will land with these extras centos-release-* packages? | 15:50 |
| NeilHanlon | today or tomorrow i expect | 15:58 |
| NeilHanlon | (mnasiadka) | 15:58 |
| mnasiadka | thanks | 15:59 |
| noonedeadpunk | #endmeeting | 16:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Sep 9 16:00:05 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:00 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/openstack_ansible_meeting/2025/openstack_ansible_meeting.2025-09-09-15.01.html | 16:00 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/openstack_ansible_meeting/2025/openstack_ansible_meeting.2025-09-09-15.01.txt | 16:00 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/openstack_ansible_meeting/2025/openstack_ansible_meeting.2025-09-09-15.01.log.html | 16:00 |
| damiandabrowski | small update from my side: I've started fixing merge conflicts in my osa_hashi_vault patches, should be done tomorrow | 16:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, we need to get some progress on merging these, and also service patches | 16:02 |
| damiandabrowski | In general, I aim to focus on PKI topic this week, but next week I'll be on vacation | 16:02 |
| *** kleini_ is now known as kleini | 16:51 | |
| mnasiadka | NeilHanlon: mirrors.rockylinux.org has hard time again? ;-) | 16:53 |
| mnasiadka | oh, just got up | 16:53 |
| *** kleini_ is now known as kleini | 17:04 | |
| opendevreview | Damian Dąbrowski proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Separate backend-specific logic to improve extensibility https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/948878 | 17:26 |
| opendevreview | Damian Dąbrowski proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Change the format of 'san' parameter in `pki_certificates` variable https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/948879 | 17:30 |
| opendevreview | Damian Dąbrowski proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Use ttl instead of not_after in pki_authorities https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/948880 | 17:30 |
| opendevreview | Damian Dąbrowski proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Add hashi_vault backend https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/948881 | 18:28 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: docs: updated information in the troubleshooting guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/959965 | 18:46 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: [doc] Fix compatability matrix table layout https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/960306 | 18:53 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: docs: updated information in the troubleshooting guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/959965 | 18:58 |
| jrosser | oh my sorry i missed the meeting | 19:07 |
| jrosser | noonedeadpunk: ^ | 19:07 |
| jrosser | i would not object to the ping at the start of the meeting we had in the past | 19:07 |
| jrosser | NeilHanlon: we run some nvme osd here but depends what you mean by performance | 19:08 |
| jrosser | you can optimise for throughput or iops which lead you in very different directions | 19:08 |
| jrosser | we also have some hosts with ceph boot-from-volume plus ceph cache drives for both read and write locally on the host | 19:09 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: docs: updated information in the troubleshooting guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/959965 | 19:09 |
| jrosser | fungi: one of the things we have had regarding contributions this cycle is a vast number of tiny docs patches | 19:10 |
| jrosser | and that makes me almost overwhelmed as a reviewer, its requires an extraordianry amount of brain cycles and somehow swamps more normal code review for me | 19:11 |
| jrosser | likley also made worse by having so many repos in openstack-ansible, making this effect really magnified as a lot of the changes are once per repo | 19:12 |
| fungi | jrosser: good to know! are those bot-proposed patches like the glossary sync ones, or coming from specific users? | 19:13 |
| jrosser | specifc users for these | 19:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | jrosser: can do that - sure | 19:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | (about pings) | 19:17 |
| jrosser | just got so busy today i totally forgot :( | 19:17 |
| jrosser | also been feeling not so happy about being able to contribute less at the moment | 19:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | jrosser: do you have a feeling regarding overall doc improvement this cycle? | 19:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | more thinking if these tons of patches were overall useful or just a noise | 19:19 |
| jrosser | i think that the effort is really worthwhile and the end result is good | 19:19 |
| jrosser | but i find the reviewing really difficult | 19:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 19:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | agree | 19:19 |
| jrosser | which lets say if we were a monorepo might be less bad | 19:20 |
| jrosser | but thats just how things are | 19:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | to be fair - we payed close to 0 attention to our docs since... xena? or smth? | 19:20 |
| jrosser | indeed :_ | 19:20 |
| jrosser | :( even | 19:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | probably even earlier... | 19:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | but yeah, I'd love some things to be combined together rather then being proposed separately | 19:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | in tiny iterations | 19:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: the same one actually | 19:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | but I don't think this was boted one specifically... | 19:23 |
| fungi | i guess if it's an ongoing thing it might be worth having a word with the contributor responsible to see how things could be done more efficiently | 19:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: it's kinda delicate matter as in general - this is being useful. Just indeed can be optimized. But at the same time I don't want to discourage contributions... | 19:28 |
| fungi | well, talking to someone about how to improve the efficiency of their contributions shouldn't necessarily be discouraging | 19:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 19:31 |
| fungi | but this is exactly the sort of thing the first contact sig was formed to tackle, and it's now effectively defunct | 19:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | not them being on IRC also makes it harder | 19:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | *them not being on IRC | 19:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | and ML/emails usually is treated as a very formal way of communication, where it could be hard to express intention and overall mood | 19:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | but yeah, will reach them out and see :) | 19:33 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Chubinidze proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: docs: updated information in the troubleshooting guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/959965 | 19:40 |
| opendevreview | Damian Dąbrowski proposed openstack/ansible-role-pki master: Add hashi_vault backend https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-pki/+/948881 | 19:58 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: docs: updated information in the troubleshooting guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/959965 | 20:23 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: docs: updated information in the troubleshooting guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/959965 | 20:26 |
| opendevreview | Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: docs: updated information in the troubleshooting guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/959965 | 20:28 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!