| opendevreview | ChungWon Lee proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test for bug #2134375 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984900 | 00:27 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Sam Morrison proposed openstack/nova master: Filter out deleted instances when looking for build timouts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/880125 | 02:58 |
| opendevreview | chanyeol yoon proposed openstack/nova master: Fix infinite WARNING loop in _reclaim_queued_deletes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/985068 | 06:57 |
| opendevreview | Kamil Sambor proposed openstack/nova master: Enable threading mode for proxy services https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/976089 | 07:55 |
| opendevreview | Kamil Sambor proposed openstack/nova master: Test nova CLI commands with native threading https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984036 | 09:31 |
| Uggla | sean-k-mooney, as discussed I will prepare the pci grouping topic because that's an internal high prio topic. | 09:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | thanks i have not really had tiem to propsoe it bvut that partly becasue i dont really knwo what if any the open questiosn are | 09:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | the spec has obvioulsy been up for a while and its jsut a refinement of the previoulsy appoved spec | 09:44 |
| sean-k-mooney | so i dont really know what need ptg discussions vs what just need gerrit reivew | 09:45 |
| bauzas | Uggla: sean-k-mooney: IMHO we should be discussing this in the cyborg-nova x-p session | 09:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | nope | 09:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | thi is not a cyborg related topic | 09:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is a pure nova proposal and even if cyborg may have simialr functionaltiy in the future it is indepent of that | 09:46 |
| gibi | it is hard to say what are the open question before loading context on the PCI grouping topic. I'm doing that loading now | 09:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | gibi: thanks ++ | 09:47 |
| sean-k-mooney | this is what im suggesting for the nova-cybrog topics https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cyborg-2026.2-ptg#L294 | 09:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | but honestly i feel like that already too much | 09:48 |
| gibi | Uggla: on a related note, I found hints in the pci/stats code that also assumes that VFs under the same parent are equivalent https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/525158521281cf643a9942522788efd15ba12d6b/nova/pci/stats.py#L164-L169 so this code need to be looked at when we want to remove the restriction of one RC for all VFs under the same PF | 09:48 |
| Uggla | sean-k-mooney, Could you send me the link to the spec if you have it handy? | 09:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | sure ill go grab it | 09:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/975635 | 09:49 |
| Uggla | I agree the cyborg content seems already too large. So definitively need a session for PCI grouping. | 09:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | weired in my brian i pushed that in like december not febuary | 09:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | i guess because i sated on it just before i went on pto and then picked it up agan breifly in late jan early febuary | 09:51 |
| Uggla | sean-k-mooney thx | 09:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | the other spec https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/967515 will be taken over by joan thaat is the first cyborg sepcifc spec for nova for this cycle | 09:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | im not sure if we will have another | 09:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | it kind of depend on which feature/integration we priorites | 09:52 |
| Uggla | Also, Iām likely lacking some knowledge on PCI grouping, but Iām counting on all of you to help me out. <3 | 09:55 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: thanks a lot for your proposals ! Sorry I preferred to have some bootstrapped files but sure I'll review your patch and accept it once I doublecheck about the differences between the markdown file and the restructured one | 09:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | in essence its just a way to say "provision these togeher and schdule them as a group" that the core idea, today you can have man pci alias request in a single flavor but they alwas provide you 1 device per aplis, pci grouping is just a way to say thses specific set of device are member of a group and i would like 1 of that type of group in a concise way | 09:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | everything beyond that and the usecase that enabels are the details but that is the 10,000 foot view | 09:58 |
| stephenfin | bauzas: Thanks. Can I get core on that too, please? I think sean-k-mooney is after it also | 09:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes i would like to activly be inovled in the development fo that repo | 10:00 |
| stephenfin | or better, just add various `*-core` projects for now, which we can extend with non-cores (ops, other end-users) over time | 10:00 |
| stephenfin | *`*-core` groups from projects | 10:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | im also reuickly reivewing the scafold patch | 10:01 |
| stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: it's already merged :( | 10:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok i can propsoe a revert :P | 10:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | just kidding | 10:01 |
| gibi | sean-k-mooney: where I feel complication (and digging into) is that today we schedule based on per device parameteres like live-migratable, traits, device_type, numa, etc. But when you have a group of such devices these parameters are not always easily inherited from a diverse set of device to a single group the devs are in | 10:01 |
| stephenfin | bauzas slightly jumped the gun, I'm afraid | 10:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i want to get some agreement on the repo layout ectra before we go too far | 10:01 |
| stephenfin | (I understand his rationale, but it was still under very active review) | 10:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | i was going to work on some liniting/precommit tooling too | 10:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | if this is going to be a real repo it need at least basic zuul ci | 10:02 |
| sean-k-mooney | and that shoudl be doen very early | 10:02 |
| stephenfin | true | 10:05 |
| gibi | sean-k-mooney: stephenfin: which repo are you talking about? :) | 10:09 |
| stephenfin | https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/agentic-workflows | 10:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://opendev.org/openstack/agentic-workflows | 10:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | we have a lot of thing to agree on like rst+sphink or markdonw ectra before we start commiting content there | 10:10 |
| gibi | ohh, is it a grassroot movement, or was there already a decision on the tc / community level to have it? | 10:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | it was discssed on the list and propsoed to buidl it under the tact sig | 10:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | but litrlly in the last day | 10:12 |
| gibi | very strange move before the PTG | 10:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | which is why i was not expecting to really merge any content ther until after it was more widely dicssed at the ptg | 10:12 |
| sean-k-mooney | right | 10:12 |
| stephenfin | yeah | 10:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | i didnt expect either the repo to be create or content to be merged untile after the tc slot | 10:13 |
| sean-k-mooney | i fine with propsoing some review ectra | 10:13 |
| gibi | I'm affraid that the content in this repo is seens as the communities agreement about this topic | 10:13 |
| bauzas | sorry I was off for 15 mins due to a taxi need | 10:17 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: stephenfin: I had to merge some things but we can change anything for sure | 10:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | well you not really | 10:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | it could have statyed in gerrit | 10:18 |
| stephenfin | yeah that's what I said š | 10:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | but ya we can change things | 10:19 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: sean-k-mooney: I'm just adding you both as cores | 10:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | i need to also go do taxi for "Freya" since my frid does not want to walk in the rain with the dog. | 10:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | because of course teh "dog" does not want to walk :P | 10:20 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: sean-k-mooney: added you both | 10:21 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: now reviewing your change | 10:21 |
| stephenfin | ty š | 10:22 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: 2 nits and I'm cool | 10:26 |
| bauzas | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/agentic-workflows/+/985078 | 10:26 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: sorry, as I said with my +W comment, it was a chicken-and-egg issue, but please review https://opendev.org/openstack/agentic-workflows/src/branch/master/AGENTS.md because of your concerns about the directories | 10:31 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: sean-k-mooney: gibi: would you prefer I revert my merged changes actually ? | 10:33 |
| stephenfin | bauzas: thanks, done | 10:35 |
| gibi | bauzas: I prefer to have proper discussion on the PTG | 10:36 |
| stephenfin | RE: changes, I don't see the point of reverting now, but I'd certainly hold off merging any skills yet. PTG is next week: let's wait until after that | 10:36 |
| gibi | before sending an official looking message via a repo in the openstack namespec | 10:36 |
| gibi | namespace | 10:36 |
| bauzas | I'm like stephenfin here | 10:36 |
| bauzas | I think we can stop merging anything but the AGENTS.md and the README.md | 10:37 |
| stephenfin | maybe worth adding a note to the README(.md) that this is not an official project also | 10:37 |
| bauzas | so then we can discuss about the skills | 10:37 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: can do that | 10:37 |
| bauzas | it would only become "official' once https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/984958 is accepted | 10:37 |
| bauzas | (yet another chicken-and-egg issue) | 10:38 |
| stephenfin | gibi: bauzas: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/agentic-workflows/+/985082 | 10:41 |
| bauzas | stephenfin: +Wd both patches (and we need some kind of core policy :-) ) | 10:45 |
| bauzas | for the moment, we bootstrap only README and AGENTS.md but for sure we will need to find a way to have consensus :) | 10:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | bauzas: you know im stilll reviewing the first pathch you merged right | 10:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | in rst format | 10:45 |
| sean-k-mooney | im not agianst movign to markdon but i woudl like time to actully leave my feedbac | 10:46 |
| bauzas | doh sorry | 10:46 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: fwiw, stephen removed some sections from the README so I guess it's more important to review the AGENTS.md file now | 10:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | well the AGENT.md is hopelfully very short | 10:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i was still on the readme ill look at that next | 10:51 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: there is a rule about not having more than 500 lines for both skill.md and AGENTS.md :) | 10:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok i dissagre on both :) | 10:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | skills can be longer then AGENTS.md | 10:57 |
| sean-k-mooney | becuase only frontmatter is loaded into the context window form a skill initally | 10:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | so the overall leght is only an issue if the skill is actully used | 10:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | where as AGENT.md is incldue in every tool call | 10:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | so it need to be smaller | 10:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont want to perscibe an actual number right now | 10:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | but those shoudl be trated differntly | 10:59 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I'm just advocating based on the agentskills best practice :) https://agentskills.io/skill-creation/best-practices#structure-large-skills-with-progressive-disclosure | 10:59 |
| bauzas | anyway, I don't want to be that prescreptive, fwiw the AGENTS.md is pretty small atm, and no skills won't be accepted before we officially agree on the direction | 11:01 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/agentic-workflows/+/985021/1/README.rst has my initall comments | 11:04 |
| sean-k-mooney | bauzas: wether we use tox or not was goint to be one of the topic i watned to dicss by the way | 11:05 |
| bauzas | I just wanted a small linter on check | 11:05 |
| sean-k-mooney | if we expect to have python script and or unit test then it makes sesne | 11:05 |
| bauzas | hence the use ot tox | 11:06 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: and thanks for the reviews | 11:06 |
| sean-k-mooney | if we dont then we may want to condier other options | 11:06 |
| bauzas | the current is that we use a tox target in check and gate for checking the frontmatters using the 'agentskills validate' recommended tool | 11:07 |
| bauzas | https://agentskills.io/specification#validation | 11:09 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep i just saw but again we shoudl dicuss those ways of working first | 11:10 |
| stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: can you re-ack https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984918? | 11:24 |
| stephenfin | and bauzas, ditto for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984956/ (I'd to fix some typos and a comment from dan) | 11:25 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: well, I don't see the controversy for the frontmatter linter | 11:25 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: what's your concern with running a tox target with it ? that's an easy win to me | 11:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | well the issue is mroe that you merged anything before the ptg into this repo | 11:25 |
| bauzas | none of that is skills | 11:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont think you shoudl have merge anything | 11:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | at all | 11:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | as i said creating the reviews is totlaly fine | 11:26 |
| stephenfin | It's done. Let's keep reviewing now and gather thoughts for the PTG | 11:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep that what im focusing on | 11:27 |
| bauzas | again I apologize, I didn't wanted to force anything but trying to just have a boostrap that people can review | 11:27 |
| bauzas | I'm cool with reverting for example the tox patch but I found this was not really controversial | 11:28 |
| stephenfin | I'll repeat š It's done. Let's keep reviewing now and gather thoughts for the PTG. There's a lot more people that are going to have opinions on this than us | 11:29 |
| sean-k-mooney | its not the content of hte patch that was the issue it was the lack fo time to provide feedback | 11:29 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I think, the easiest if you want is for me to revert https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/agentic-workflows/+/985027 which was at the top | 11:49 |
| bauzas | and then I'll revert the revert so we can discuss about the AGENTS.md in the new gerrit patch if that's simplied | 11:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | lets not jump right to that | 11:50 |
| bauzas | now the README.md is pretty small | 11:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | as steph said its merged but there are large part of it that i want to review in detail and refine | 11:50 |
| bauzas | so I guess we definitely need to discuss about te structure | 11:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | yes i have a very diffent vission from you of how this repo should be stucureed | 11:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | adn how the code-review skill shoudl work | 11:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | for exampels i do not think we shoudl have any personas in the repo | 11:51 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: so if you don't me to revert, please provide a new change for changing what you want | 11:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | i will but im still reviewing all the open chnages | 11:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | to do what stephen suggested | 11:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | which is building a set of topic to dicusss | 11:53 |
| bauzas | sean-k-mooney: stephenfin: want me to create another IRC channel for the project ? I don't want to hit the nova channel to be a lot of discussions for the project and ralonsoh could be join as well | 12:21 |
| stephenfin | probably premature before next week | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | am we can | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | but ya lets wait | 12:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | i mean we can create it if you want but i porably have already spent more tiem on this then i should have since i have things to prepare before the ptg | 12:25 |
| bauzas | I just joined #openstack-agentic-workflows so you can join too, but agreed, I wouldn't add it in openstack/project-config until next week | 12:27 |
| bauzas | I'd rather prefer us to discuss there | 12:27 |
| ralonsoh | bauzas, I'm ok with this. We can also, if needed, create a weekly meeting | 12:38 |
| ralonsoh | but that could be discussed in the PTG, in any case | 12:38 |
| ralonsoh | but yes, the channel would be perfect | 12:38 |
| gibi | is this agentic-workflows something that should be a TC driven cross project goal? I think so. But then we need to agree on what is in scope of that goal and propose that in the governance repo | 12:39 |
| bauzas | gibi: see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/984958 | 12:39 |
| bauzas | that wouldn't be a TC goal, rather a TaCT SIG new project | 12:40 |
| gibi | ack | 12:40 |
| bauzas | ralonsoh: you can join the channel as I did, we can discuss there until we officially add it in project-config | 12:40 |
| gibi | but that patch does not seems to define the scope | 12:41 |
| bauzas | gibi: there is no real scope per say | 12:41 |
| bauzas | scope is about adding skills and subagents related to OpenStack | 12:41 |
| gibi | and is that good that we are going in without some scope definition? | 12:41 |
| gibi | how do we check if we are going to the right direction, or when we are done? | 12:42 |
| ralonsoh | #join project-config | 12:42 |
| bauzas | but the project doesn't have scope about how to use it by upstream | 12:42 |
| ralonsoh | arggggg | 12:42 |
| bauzas | ralonsoh: nah, join #openstack-agentic-workflows | 12:42 |
| ralonsoh | yeah hehehe | 12:42 |
| gibi | scope also helps judging contributions about is it in scope? is it out of scope? | 12:42 |
| bauzas | gibi: there aren't yet conventions about judging contributions for it atm, but there are already some guidelines from agentskills about evaluating skills that I'd like us to do https://agentskills.io/skill-creation/evaluating-skills | 12:45 |
| gibi | OK so one of the implicit scope / goal item is to apply https://agentskills.io/skill-creation/evaluating-skills going forward. | 12:47 |
| gibi | can we collect these implicit things and make them explicit | 12:47 |
| opendevreview | Kamil Sambor proposed openstack/nova master: Test nova CLI commands with native threading https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984036 | 12:47 |
| bauzas | gibi: the problem with skill evaluations is that you need to be able to use LLMs for evaluating them | 12:48 |
| bauzas | so we can't run CI upstream jobs atm | 12:48 |
| bauzas | I added this item for the TC topic we'll discuss next week | 12:48 |
| gibi | you can define goal and scope regardless of if an item in the goal is CI verifiable or not. j | 12:49 |
| bauzas | gibi: true | 13:13 |
| opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add reproducer for bug #2141722 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984521 | 13:24 |
| opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Fix os-simple-tenant-usage pagination with duplicate instance_extra https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984522 | 13:24 |
| opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Add reproducer for bug #2111320: soft-deleted services in Instance.services https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/982675 | 13:50 |
| opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova master: Filter soft-deleted services from Instance.services ORM relationship https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/982676 | 13:50 |
| Zhan[m] | Hi friends, I have two quick live migration related improvements for review, wondering if I can get some quick feedback on the ideas? Thanks! https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/978255, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/976311 | 13:54 |
| stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: just a reminder about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984918, in case you got distacted by the agent stuff :) | 13:57 |
| stephenfin | (if it's already on your list, sorry for the noise) | 13:58 |
| opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Fix functional tests and mypy on macOS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937727 | 14:12 |
| winiciusallan[m] | folks, I saw a lot of discussion on the mail list about a spot instance service in Nova, some people have even start implementing, but this wasn't go further | 14:55 |
| winiciusallan[m] | CERN has a external service for this https://gitlab.cern.ch/cloud-infrastructure/aardvark | 14:56 |
| winiciusallan[m] | do you know by chance if having this kind of service integrated into Nova is interest for the community? | 14:56 |
| winiciusallan[m] | i'm thinking of implementing this as part of my final thesis. this will make other research regarding billing and charge strategies easier to evaluate | 15:00 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: tox: Remove override of install_command https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984918 | 15:14 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: docs: Update development-environment guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/984956 | 15:14 |
| sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: we decieed that it should not be in nova | 15:42 |
| sean-k-mooney | we reivwed the sepec and went back and forth but decieed it shoudl live as its own thing external to nova | 15:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: i have tought that this could live in watcher in the future | 15:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | there is also a host based version in blazar today | 15:43 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i think watcher can facilatate a more granular approch similar to the orgianl concept | 15:44 |
| winiciusallan[m] | sean-k-mooney: yeah, thinking about watcher it looks more natural considering the architecture of the service | 15:49 |
| winiciusallan[m] | I dropped a message on scientific-sig asking if people have use cases or gaps that they would like to improve | 15:50 |
| winiciusallan[m] | one from NASA talked about GPUs being expensive and it might be a use case for them | 15:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | i dont know if i ever wrote up a spec for it there. but the idea was to annotate the isntance via the flavor or instance metadta wiht lifecycle:premtable=ture | 15:51 |
| winiciusallan[m] | others from CERN and nectar-rc use aardvak | 15:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | then have a new goal for permation and 1-n stragies for how to dop it | 15:52 |
| winiciusallan[m] | sean-k-mooney: +1 with this approach. this is how the first spec was written on nova | 15:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | so the firction with doing this is nova is https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/project-scope.html#no-more-orchestration and https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/project-scope.html#no-more-orchestration | 15:53 |
| winiciusallan[m] | probably different strategies for how to find the best instance to preempt and also being possible to extend a custom strategy | 15:53 |
| winiciusallan[m] | sounds good | 15:53 |
| sean-k-mooney | we have basicly said we do not want to build complex orchstration logic in nova or optimise for batch processing | 15:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | but we want to make sure that higher level service can express the policy on top | 15:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | which is where aardvark or watcher can play a role | 15:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: ya so there are a lot of intersting way to decie which instnace to preempt and what that means (either delete or shelve) | 15:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | for example delete oldest first | 15:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | delete bigest first | 15:55 |
| winiciusallan[m] | best fit and so on... | 15:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | delete instnace on expensive hosts or where there is pressure based on mettrics | 15:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | so watcher with its plugable goals and stragies | 15:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | woudl allow you to experiment with those | 15:56 |
| sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/RHOSRFE-142 is a downstream tracker i filed to do this "eventualy" | 15:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | but its not someting i have had time to activly work on and i dont expect to actully do that any time soon | 15:58 |
| winiciusallan[m] | i'll be happy to help you with this if it is possible | 15:59 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.bf5f1185e201e31ed8c3adeb45e3cf6d#L747 | 16:00 |
| winiciusallan[m] | I need to sync from my side what is the scope for my thesis, there is a slighly chance of testing different strategies... | 16:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | well if you want to talk about this more in the context of watcher feel free to reach out in #openstack-watcher | 16:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | we are also haveing the PTG next week so we could chat about it more there too if you were interested | 16:00 |
| sean-k-mooney | winiciusallan[m]: no worries either way, that the most recent context i can provide on this topic so if you do or do not have scope to wrok on this either is fine | 16:02 |
| winiciusallan[m] | at a first moment, i was thinking of discussing this on nova ptg, but since answered me in advance we can discuss this on watcher's ptg | 16:03 |
| winiciusallan[m] | let's take the discussion to #openstack-watcher | 16:03 |
| winiciusallan[m] | joining there | 16:03 |
| opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Fix functional tests and mypy on macOS https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937727 | 16:27 |
| gmaan | bauzas gibi console proxy in threading mode change lgtm now https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/976089 | 17:04 |
| gibi | gmaan: ack thanks. Maybe next week before the PTG calls I will have time to get to it | 17:26 |
| gibi | Uggla: sean-k-mooney: I filled out the details of the PCI Grouping topic in the etherpad | 18:15 |
| sean-k-mooney | gibi: ++ | 18:16 |
| gibi | and that is my exit today | 18:16 |
| sean-k-mooney | thanks | 18:16 |
| gibi | btw, does AI crawlers know how to read an etherpad? | 18:17 |
| sean-k-mooney | i expoerted it to a file when i wanted it to fix spelling | 18:18 |
| gibi | and does our Agentic overlord LLMs can read an etherpad? | 18:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | but proably yes | 18:18 |
| sean-k-mooney | it can read it in that its just a webpage | 18:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | but i didnt want to givbe it a link | 18:19 |
| sean-k-mooney | because i didnt want it to do random things | 18:19 |
| Uggla | gibi, thanks, but regarding the hour 20:15 looks a bit late and not cool. I wish you a good WE and please rest during the WE. Next week will be intense. | 19:25 |
| gibi | Uggla: thanks. It is complicated. :D | 20:43 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!