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
16:26:27 <sshnaidm> yeah,
16:26:48 <sshnaidm> but this is in the new year
16:27:01 <sshnaidm> thanks all!
16:27:13 <gtema> wlcm
16:27:21 <sshnaidm> #endmeeting