| *** dviroel|ruck|afk is now known as dviroel|ruck | 00:48 | |
| *** dviroel|ruck is now known as dviroel|ruck|out | 00:57 | |
| *** dviroel|ruck|out is now known as dviroel|out | 00:57 | |
| *** hemna1 is now known as hemna | 07:37 | |
| *** dviroel|out is now known as dviroel|ruck | 11:10 | |
| *** dasm|off is now known as dasm | 13:17 | |
| rosmaita | #startmeeting cinder | 14:01 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Wed Feb 9 14:01:14 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rosmaita. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:01 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:01 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'cinder' | 14:01 |
| rosmaita | #topic roll call | 14:01 |
| simondodsley | o/ | 14:01 |
| hemna | yough | 14:01 |
| tosky | o/ | 14:01 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 14:01 |
| fabiooliveira | hi o/ | 14:01 |
| yuval | Hey | 14:01 |
| TusharTgite | hi | 14:01 |
| milosz_linkiewicz | hi | 14:01 |
| kkaras_intel | hello | 14:01 |
| e0ne | hi | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | good turnout! | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-yoga-meetings | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | let's get started | 14:02 |
| jungleboyj | \o/ | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | #topic announcements | 14:02 |
| rosmaita | we discussed an operator survey (maybe at the midcycle) to get an idea of how many volumes projects tend to have | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-February/027077.html | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | the survey is open until 30 March | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | please spread the word to your customers | 14:03 |
| rosmaita | the more data we can get, the better | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | next up, it's PTL election season | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | good news: we have at least one candidate! | 14:04 |
| rosmaita | (and it's not me) | 14:04 |
| hemna | oh? | 14:05 |
| geguileo | rosmaita: quitter | 14:05 |
| jungleboyj | :-) Thank you Rajat! | 14:05 |
| rosmaita | :D | 14:05 |
| jungleboyj | geguileo: He he he. | 14:05 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: You lasted longer than I did. | 14:05 |
| rosmaita | i lasted longer than i intended to, also! | 14:05 |
| simondodsley | rosmaita: what will you do with your life now??? | 14:05 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:06 |
| rosmaita | i will fill the void somehow | 14:06 |
| * fabiooliveira :O | 14:06 | |
| rosmaita | ok, next item | 14:06 |
| rosmaita | yoga os-brick release is scheduled for tomorrow | 14:07 |
| rosmaita | there are still patches to be reviewed (of course) | 14:07 |
| rosmaita | we will discuss more later | 14:07 |
| rosmaita | next, we announced last week that we would also do stable branch releases this week | 14:07 |
| rosmaita | but, i've decided to hold those to next week | 14:08 |
| rosmaita | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-stable-releases | 14:08 |
| rosmaita | the targeted stuff is on ^^ | 14:08 |
| rosmaita | remember, we don't allow a backport to release n unless the code is already in release n+1 | 14:08 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 14:09 |
| rosmaita | that is, a backport to wallaby must already have merged into xena | 14:09 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: I will take a look at that list. | 14:09 |
| rosmaita | jungleboyj: ty | 14:09 |
| rosmaita | and finally ... | 14:09 |
| rosmaita | feature freeze in 2 weeks | 14:09 |
| rosmaita | so we are roughly 1 month away from the yoga coordinated release | 14:10 |
| rosmaita | ok, on to the regular topics | 14:10 |
| rosmaita | i just reordered them on the agenda | 14:10 |
| rosmaita | #topic third-party driver backport policy | 14:10 |
| rosmaita | this is relevant to the stable releases (obviously) | 14:11 |
| rosmaita | i sent out a message to the ML summarizing what we agreed on at the midcycle | 14:11 |
| rosmaita | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-February/027021.html | 14:11 |
| rosmaita | i am going to paste the key point into the meeting log: | 14:11 |
| rosmaita | When a vendor driver patch backport is proposed, we would like to see a clear statement on the gerrit review that the patch has been tested in an appropriate environment. | 14:12 |
| rosmaita | (^^ that is the key point) | 14:12 |
| simondodsley | ++ | 14:12 |
| rosmaita | there are a bunch of proposed backports that don't have such a statement | 14:12 |
| rosmaita | simondodsley has -1d a bunch of them | 14:12 |
| rosmaita | but, even without a -1, you should not expect a backport to be reviewed/approved unless you have such a statement | 14:13 |
| rosmaita | so, please take appropriate action! | 14:13 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: Ok, so on the ones that Simon has -1d, don't merge them until they indicate they have been tested? | 14:13 |
| rosmaita | yes, and same thing for any others | 14:14 |
| rosmaita | even without -1s | 14:14 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. | 14:14 |
| rosmaita | unless you feel like -1'ing them | 14:14 |
| rosmaita | or -2, maybe then people will really get the message | 14:14 |
| rosmaita | though i'd probably reserve -2 for inappropriate backports | 14:14 |
| jungleboyj | Well, that will help my review stats. ;-) | 14:15 |
| rosmaita | any questions? i don't know how else to get the word out to people | 14:15 |
| rosmaita | we discussed at midcycle | 14:15 |
| geguileo | -1 seems like the most appropriate | 14:15 |
| rosmaita | announced on ML | 14:15 |
| jungleboyj | geguileo: ++ | 14:15 |
| rosmaita | mentioned it in the weekly meeting | 14:15 |
| simondodsley | when vendors see there backports not merging they will take notice... | 14:16 |
| rosmaita | geguileo: i agree ... we will reserve -2 for indicating a possibly inappropriate backport | 14:16 |
| rosmaita | simondodsley: hope so | 14:16 |
| rosmaita | ok, next topic | 14:16 |
| rosmaita | #topic new driver review checklist update | 14:16 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: ++ | 14:16 |
| rosmaita | i noticed some items missing from our review list as i was reviewing new driver patches | 14:17 |
| rosmaita | so i posted an update | 14:17 |
| rosmaita | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/822768 | 14:17 |
| rosmaita | take a look, and feel free to make suggestions for other things we should be looking for that aren't mentioned | 14:17 |
| rosmaita | that's all for that | 14:18 |
| rosmaita | #topic Reset state robustification review(need a review on this series) | 14:18 |
| rosmaita | TusharTgite: i think this is you | 14:18 |
| rosmaita | let me paste in the links for the record | 14:18 |
| rosmaita | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/773985/20 | 14:18 |
| rosmaita | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/804757/11 | 14:18 |
| TusharTgite | yes i need areview on this base patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/773985/20 to work further for this feature | 14:18 |
| rosmaita | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/804735/14 | 14:19 |
| TusharTgite | there are total 5 patch in this series so far | 14:20 |
| rosmaita | quick question ... this doesn't happen on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/773985/20 (i just looked), but at some point you were returning 400 for resetting state to the current state | 14:21 |
| rosmaita | i didn't remember that from the spec | 14:22 |
| rosmaita | (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/773985/20 looks good btw) | 14:22 |
| rosmaita | are you doing that in some of the other patches still? | 14:22 |
| rosmaita | (and i may be incorrect about the spec) | 14:22 |
| jungleboyj | The 400 was handled in a separate patch that I looked at yesterday. | 14:23 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: yes we were returing 400 to reset state to same state but eharney suggest that we dont need to cover this state | 14:23 |
| TusharTgite | jungleboyj: yo look into snapshot api patch | 14:24 |
| rosmaita | ok, cool | 14:24 |
| TusharTgite | volume API is the base patch for this whole series | 14:24 |
| rosmaita | thanks for your patience in working on this | 14:24 |
| TusharTgite | thanks i want to merge this in yoga cycle so please do give me reviews on this one | 14:25 |
| rosmaita | volume api patch LGTM, i will look more closely immediately after the meeting | 14:25 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: thanks | 14:26 |
| rosmaita | one more question ... have we had the 400 vs. 409 (Conflict) discussion? | 14:26 |
| rosmaita | i seem to remember discussing this with someone, and we decided that cinder mostly uses 400 | 14:26 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: no we have no discussion about that | 14:27 |
| rosmaita | ok, you are returning 400s, is that correct? | 14:27 |
| rosmaita | (i mean is that what you are doing in your patches) | 14:28 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: yes i'm returning 400 in all invalid states for reset status | 14:28 |
| rosmaita | ok, and actually i see this line in your spec: | 14:28 |
| rosmaita | "os-reset-status actions on volumes, snaps, backups, groups, will now return a 400 in some cases where they would previously succeeded. This does not require a microversion bump." | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | so that means we approved 400 | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | great | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | just want that to be clear so that people don't downvote the patches for not using 409 | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | (though i may have been the only person who would do that) | 14:29 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: ok sounds good | 14:29 |
| rosmaita | note to self: 400 is OK!!! | 14:30 |
| rosmaita | thanks TusharTgite | 14:30 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: jungleboyj thank for your review | 14:30 |
| geguileo | rosmaita: it would be good to mention it on the commit message, and the reason why it's ok to do the change, right? | 14:30 |
| rosmaita | geguileo: you mean the 400? | 14:31 |
| geguileo | rosmaita: yes, changing 409 to 400 | 14:31 |
| rosmaita | i think it's more like changing 200 to 400, but i get your point | 14:31 |
| rosmaita | yeah, let's come up with a boilerplate statement TusharTgite can use on the commit messages | 14:32 |
| geguileo | that's even worse | 14:32 |
| rosmaita | yeah, but the whole point of this change is that you could "succeed" and wind up in a bad place | 14:32 |
| geguileo | I would assume idempotency in such a method... | 14:32 |
| geguileo | oh, I missunderstood | 14:32 |
| geguileo | ok, so now we are just fixing the behaviour | 14:33 |
| rosmaita | right, i think we have idempotency back in the latest patches | 14:33 |
| rosmaita | exactly | 14:33 |
| rosmaita | but, it would be good to state explicitly that we don't need a microversion bump for this | 14:33 |
| geguileo | and that it's failing where it was succeeding before to prevent messing things up | 14:34 |
| rosmaita | right, it's the "don't allow you to shoot yourself in the foot" approach | 14:34 |
| geguileo | lol yes | 14:35 |
| rosmaita | since we have a light agenda, i would like to take 5 minutes to work this out | 14:35 |
| rosmaita | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/no-foot-shooting | 14:36 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: ok | 14:36 |
| rosmaita | ok, my suggestion is up there in the etherpad | 14:38 |
| rosmaita | it may be overly dramatic | 14:38 |
| simondodsley | bring on the drama... | 14:40 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: thanks for commit msg i'll add it in existing one for better understanding | 14:42 |
| rosmaita | is everyone ok with the message? | 14:43 |
| rosmaita | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/no-foot-shooting | 14:43 |
| rosmaita | jungleboyj: do you remember what patch it was were we had the 400/409 discussion? it was about a month ago | 14:43 |
| jungleboyj | A month ago? That is like a year in my life. ;-) | 14:44 |
| jungleboyj | I don't remember off the top of my head. | 14:44 |
| rosmaita | yeah, me too, i can barely remember last week | 14:44 |
| rosmaita | ok, well, people can trust us that we did discuss this about a different patch, and it turns out that the Block Storage API uses 400 even when you think 409 might be better | 14:45 |
| rosmaita | ok, anything else on this topic? | 14:46 |
| rosmaita | TusharTgite: add that paragragraph at the bottom of your commit messages, just before the "partially-implements" tag | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | ok, moving on | 14:47 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: Right, we had several people weigh in and decided that enforcing 409 now would be inconsistent and that changing them all would be a large undertaking. | 14:47 |
| TusharTgite | rosmaita: ok | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | yes, take a note for API version 4! | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | #topic yoga os-brick release | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | here's what's available: | 14:47 |
| rosmaita | http://tiny.cc/brick-patches | 14:48 |
| rosmaita | ok, looking at that, we need to get the nvmeof and lightos changes reviewed | 14:50 |
| rosmaita | the NVMeOF agent hasn't been updated in a while, so not that one | 14:50 |
| rosmaita | i haven't left a comment on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/822642 , but i'm not sure about the way the retry is being handled there | 14:51 |
| rosmaita | geguileo: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/811718 has a -1 from you ... don't know if you saw the response to your comment on that one | 14:52 |
| rosmaita | seems the author believes that the case is covered | 14:52 |
| rosmaita | would be good if you could respond if you disagree | 14:53 |
| rosmaita | is everyone clear on the review priorities, or do we need an etherpad? | 14:54 |
| rosmaita | the image encryption patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/709432 will be held for Z, though hopefully merging very early in Z | 14:55 |
| geguileo | rosmaita: I'm looking at the patch, and I would have to deploy a devstack to check things out | 14:56 |
| geguileo | and I'm using my current devstack to test a couple of other patches... | 14:57 |
| rosmaita | ok, thanks ... we have a little slippage time for the release | 14:57 |
| rosmaita | we can talk about that offline | 14:57 |
| rosmaita | i should not have said that out loud | 14:57 |
| rosmaita | one other patch i noticed is that https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/810419 looks like a security issue | 14:58 |
| rosmaita | so i think we should prioritize that one too | 14:58 |
| rosmaita | ok, so: nvmeof patches (except the agent), lightos connector patches, and 810419 | 14:59 |
| rosmaita | anyone here who would like to make a case for any others? | 14:59 |
| rosmaita | if you have time, eharney will probably buy you a beer at the PTG if you review the mypy patches | 15:00 |
| rosmaita | ok, we are out of time | 15:00 |
| rosmaita | thanks everyone! | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | Thanks! | 15:01 |
| fabiooliveira | \o | 15:01 |
| rosmaita | #endmeeting | 15:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Wed Feb 9 15:01:18 2022 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:01 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cinder/2022/cinder.2022-02-09-14.01.html | 15:01 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cinder/2022/cinder.2022-02-09-14.01.txt | 15:01 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/cinder/2022/cinder.2022-02-09-14.01.log.html | 15:01 |
| *** dviroel|ruck is now known as dviroel|out | 22:33 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!