14:00:05 <whoami-rajat> #startmeeting cinder
14:00:05 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Feb  7 14:00:05 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is whoami-rajat. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:05 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:05 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
14:00:10 <whoami-rajat> #topic roll call
14:00:19 <happystacker> Hello !
14:00:30 <rosmaita> o/
14:00:33 <sp-bmilanov> o/
14:00:41 <Luzi> o/
14:00:46 <crohmann> o/
14:01:21 <akawai> o/
14:01:21 <simondodsley> o/
14:01:38 <msaravan> Hi
14:02:46 <whoami-rajat> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-caracal-meetings
14:03:33 <eharney> o/
14:03:40 <zaitcev> o/
14:04:12 <whoami-rajat> welcome everyone
14:04:17 <whoami-rajat> let's get started with announcements
14:04:22 <whoami-rajat> #topic announcements
14:04:32 <whoami-rajat> Midcycle - 2
14:04:37 <whoami-rajat> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/BJ7EFMPBDNZMDVYWASC7CFY5GXW4GEGX/
14:04:48 <whoami-rajat> Details:
14:04:48 <whoami-rajat> Date: 14th February, 2024
14:04:48 <whoami-rajat> Time: 1400-1600 UTC
14:04:48 <whoami-rajat> Meeting link: https://meet.google.com/cqw-kbpn-sxx
14:04:48 <whoami-rajat> Etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-caracal-midcycles
14:04:54 <whoami-rajat> We only have a week so please add your topics
14:05:58 <whoami-rajat> get ready for 2 hour meeting next week!
14:06:09 <whoami-rajat> next, Releasenote job breaking and fix
14:06:16 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/907836
14:06:22 <whoami-rajat> As our transition from yoga-eom, we deleted the stable/yoga branch and created unmaintained/yoga
14:06:32 <whoami-rajat> This caused a failure in our releasenotes job because we used the tag stable/yoga
14:07:02 <whoami-rajat> I approved the patch but Brian left a comment that we should use yoga-eom instead of unmaintained/yoga as our releasenote tag
14:07:03 <simondodsley> LOL - I just noticed that and was putting it in as a topic...
14:07:30 <whoami-rajat> i also noticed today itself, but the release team was ahead of us
14:07:45 <rosmaita> Me too, just noticed this morning
14:08:10 <rosmaita> so here's why it matters
14:08:10 <whoami-rajat> so unmaintained/yoga is synchronous with stable/yoga since it will be an active branch accepting changes
14:08:30 <rosmaita> we don't have responsibility for what goes on in unmaintained/yoga
14:08:38 <happystacker> should we update https://releases.openstack.org/ as well?
14:08:53 <rosmaita> so i think we should end the yoga series release notes with the last stuff we have done
14:09:10 <rosmaita> which would be everything up to the yoga-eom tag
14:09:13 <simondodsley> there are 43 other projects using unmaintained/yoga
14:09:32 <rosmaita> yeah, but we Argonauts do not follow the crowd!
14:09:36 <whoami-rajat> happystacker, that should be updated yes, but i guess release team will already be looking into it
14:09:44 <simondodsley> we should be in sync even if it is technically wrong
14:09:48 <happystacker> oh ok good
14:10:22 <whoami-rajat> not sure if frickler is around but would be good to get his opinion on this
14:10:23 <simondodsley> rosmaita s/crowd/heard/
14:10:28 <rosmaita> about being in sync ... there is a bit of leeway with respect to the unmaintained branches
14:10:42 <rosmaita> ironic, for example, wants to actively manage theirs
14:10:55 <rosmaita> so it makes sense for them to include those changes in the official release notes
14:11:21 <rosmaita> since we don't want to, i think we should stop our release notes with our last official actions in that branch
14:11:28 <frickler> whoami-rajat: sorry having another meeting in parallel, not sure about the question?
14:11:56 <rosmaita> frickler: has to do about whether to publish unmaintained/yoga stuff in the cinder release notes
14:12:14 <whoami-rajat> i agree, the whole unmaintained thing is new so not really sure about the right thing, but what rosmaita said makes sense to me, if the project wants to be active in their unmaintained branch then unmaintained tag is good else eom should be a consideration
14:12:51 <whoami-rajat> frickler, so rosmaita suggested that we should use yoga-eom instead of unmaintained/yoga as the tag since cinder team won't be actively looking after the unmaintained branch
14:12:53 <frickler> yes, renos should still include unmaintained notes, at least that seemed to be the major opinion of the tc
14:13:16 <rosmaita> we did not actually consider that issue at the TC
14:13:22 <rosmaita> at least not that i'm aware of
14:13:47 <frickler> well ok ... of tc members
14:14:04 <frickler> but yeah, bring it up at the next meeting, certainly worth more discussion
14:14:36 <rosmaita> in the meantime, i am in favor of the -eom tag, it fits more with the "opt in" nature of the unmaintained stuff
14:14:38 <whoami-rajat> I'm pro the discussion but would also like the cinder gate to be fixed in the meantime :D
14:14:55 <simondodsley> +1
14:15:06 <whoami-rajat> I don't have any objections there
14:15:20 <whoami-rajat> also we can always update it after the discussion
14:15:31 <whoami-rajat> so +1 from me
14:15:54 <rosmaita> +1 to which?  unmaintained or eom?
14:15:59 <whoami-rajat> eom
14:16:08 <rosmaita> \o/
14:16:18 <rosmaita> let's do it, and we can set a good example
14:16:22 <rosmaita> :D
14:17:04 <whoami-rajat> yeah, I'm convinced with the idea that this should be an opt in based on if the project wants to maintain their branches
14:17:37 <whoami-rajat> else there will be questions on releasenotes about changes that we have no idea about
14:17:41 <rosmaita> ok, i'll update the patch (so if there are complaints, they'll be about me)
14:18:43 <whoami-rajat> thanks, i can share the complaints :D
14:19:14 <whoami-rajat> okay, so we will be going with the eom tag in releasenotes instead of the unmaintained one
14:19:19 <rosmaita> ok, you can go ahead and ninja it in to get the gate un-broken
14:20:21 <rosmaita> and i guess we have to backport it?  i first notice this in looking at a stable/zed patch , https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/906259
14:22:00 <whoami-rajat> I remember frickler  confirmed that stable branches should be automatically fixed by this
14:22:12 <whoami-rajat> there is some reno magic that i have no clue about
14:22:21 <whoami-rajat> but he did test it in 2023.2 branch and gate was passing
14:23:24 <whoami-rajat> okay moving on to the next announcement since we have a bunch of topics lined up
14:23:24 <frickler> yes, see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate/+/908290 , so please double check after merging the fix in master before doing too many patches
14:23:45 <whoami-rajat> thanks frickler !
14:23:55 <whoami-rajat> next, Eventlet update
14:23:58 <whoami-rajat> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/7PJZ4WYRS2B3PIZ5KYFL6V3JWYL4V5FQ/
14:24:03 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/907243
14:24:05 <rosmaita> ok, cool
14:24:14 <whoami-rajat> The version 0.35.0 broke docs job in manila and now 0.35.1 is released and merged in our UC
14:24:18 <whoami-rajat> The latest version of eventlet is expected to work across openstack
14:24:25 <whoami-rajat> We haven't seen any failures in cinder related to it so looks good for us
14:25:03 <whoami-rajat> next, oslo feature freeze
14:25:09 <whoami-rajat> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/DB7EAOKIHXCULKISSFZCYTIUMEATPGQQ/
14:25:14 <whoami-rajat> deadline: R-7: Feb 12 - Feb 16
14:25:18 <whoami-rajat> If you have any feature in oslo libraries, make sure it gets merged before Feb 16
14:26:21 <whoami-rajat> that's all the announcements we had for today
14:26:26 <whoami-rajat> anyone has anything else?
14:28:09 <whoami-rajat> okay, let's move to topics then
14:28:12 <whoami-rajat> #topic Improvement to cinder-backup dealing with incremental backups
14:28:15 <whoami-rajat> crohmann, that's you
14:28:50 <crohmann> Yes. Sorry for hijacking this as a "topic". But I just wanted some quick feedback if you like the idea at all.
14:29:16 <zaitcev> No, it's fine.
14:29:21 <crohmann> This is a change by someone else, removing the fetching of ALL backups to then loop over them to find the parent.
14:30:24 <crohmann> I reworked it and started to introduce a helper to just do a SINGLE DB query to find the suitable parent backup. I just need some guidance on using either BackupLists from objects to put the ujelp ...
14:30:41 <whoami-rajat> i can see it's a very old patch from 2017 ...
14:31:03 <crohmann> Yeah. But we are heavy users of incremental backups, that's why I found and refactored it.
14:31:41 <whoami-rajat> the idea makes sense to me, need to check the approach but should be good to include
14:31:52 <crohmann> The loop and all of this "in Python" logic seemed messy.
14:32:25 <crohmann> Just please someone use Gerrit to give me some feedback on where to place the helper funktion best and all. I finish the change quickly then.
14:34:54 <crohmann> That's all I wanted to ask about this one.
14:34:55 <zaitcev> I'll take a look. But you might want to make sure eharney looks at the RBD one.
14:35:12 <crohmann> RBD one ?
14:37:03 <zaitcev> Ceph has its own backup, kept in RBD. That is what their driver does.
14:37:48 <crohmann> Can you drop a link to the change you are referring to?
14:38:35 <crohmann> The change I am discussing here is just about the cinder-backup DB objects. Nothing driver specific ther.
14:39:42 <zaitcev> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/810457
14:40:23 <crohmann> ahhh .. you are already talking about the next next topic ;-)
14:40:38 <eharney> on 484729, openstack-tox-pep8 passed but definitely should have failed -- weird.  wonder what's going on there
14:41:18 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/484729
14:42:15 <crohmann> K, so zaitcev and eharney kindly look into https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/484729 :-)
14:42:30 <crohmann> whoami-rajat: Which topic are we then on currently.
14:42:48 <whoami-rajat> crohmann, i think you have 3 topics, guess we are done with the first one?
14:43:00 <crohmann> more than, yes.
14:43:02 <whoami-rajat> #topic DB indexes missing in backups table
14:43:10 <whoami-rajat> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/2048396
14:44:20 <crohmann> Also I quick one... This is a bug about the backups table not having any indexes at all. But there are likely some columns that are used quite heavily. With Caracal coming up, this is the chance to add then.
14:44:52 <eharney> we should fix this, i'm interested in working on it  (took the bug for now)
14:45:01 <whoami-rajat> i remember geguileo did some work on indexes for some tables, but maybe backups was not a part of that effort
14:45:07 <whoami-rajat> great, thanks eharney
14:45:38 <crohmann> eharney: Please also consider https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/484729 which will data_timestamp :-) SCNR.
14:46:07 <crohmann> I meant to say: "will filter on data_timestamp column"
14:46:49 <whoami-rajat> so this looks addressed, anything else on this topic?
14:47:12 <crohmann> not from me. Just did not want to miss the "C" release for this schema change ;.)
14:47:31 <whoami-rajat> ok
14:47:35 <whoami-rajat> #topic Cinder-Backup (rbd driver): add option to keep only last n snapshots per backup
14:47:41 <whoami-rajat> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/810457
14:48:21 <crohmann> That's the one zaitcev mentioned earlier. eharney was called out to look into this one.
14:48:58 <whoami-rajat> okay great
14:49:01 <whoami-rajat> so last one from crohmann
14:49:04 <whoami-rajat> #topic Any update on the Ceph auth / caps disucssion?
14:49:06 <crohmann> Review (and merge) of this feature kinda stalled. With a new comment from another operator today I got my hopes up we could get this
14:49:16 <crohmann> in to Caracal
14:49:38 <whoami-rajat> we can surely look for reviews on that
14:51:20 <crohmann> but the last update was Jun 22, 2022. Would be awesome to revive the review. Let me / Jan know if there are any change required to get this merged.
14:54:50 <whoami-rajat> sure, sorry it is taking long but we more or less have review bandwidth issues with contributors joining/leaving, will look more into that general problem
14:55:35 <whoami-rajat> okay anything else on this? I'm planning to cover the next 2 topics quickly in next 5 minutes
14:56:02 <crohmann> nope. I'm good on this one.
14:56:07 <whoami-rajat> great, thanks
14:56:10 <whoami-rajat> #topic Third party CI compliance check
14:56:13 <whoami-rajat> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/QK223RS27RYNDACTPUVJZR2REL42OC4B/
14:56:24 <whoami-rajat> I've sent out a mail to ML so vendors please take a look
14:56:30 <whoami-rajat> If you are a vendor, please take a look and perform required actions before the midcycle meeting next week
14:56:39 <whoami-rajat> that's all i wanted to say
14:56:46 <whoami-rajat> #topic volume type extra_specs behavior
14:56:53 <Luzi> setting custom extra specs for volume types work, but creating a volume from it will fail during scheduling due to the need to satisfy ALL extra_specs in the backend. This works different from other resources like volumes themself. What is the desired state here? Allowing "volume type set --property customkey=customvalue" and letting the scheduler ignore this, or not allowing to set custom properties at all?
14:56:57 <whoami-rajat> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/ZWXFYIQ3FSFC5MGTSIMVEHCEJRQQRQ3X/
14:57:28 <whoami-rajat> with custom properties, we are talking about driver specific properties right?
14:58:03 <eharney> i think it would be helpful to frame what you're wanting to accomplish with this
14:58:16 <whoami-rajat> we also allow setting AZs and multiattach in the extra specs which are not related to drivers
14:58:27 <Luzi> i am talking about the field of "properties" or extra specs and its usage in volume types
14:59:10 <whoami-rajat> so there are some cinder specific properties, like AZ and multiattach as i mentioned, and some driver specific that are checked against the capabilities that the driver reports
14:59:23 <Luzi> because i would like to use something in volume types to give users more uniform information about volume types
14:59:29 <whoami-rajat> as eharney said, it would be easier to help if we know about the use case you are trying to achieve
15:00:13 <eharney> so the use case is to try to have fields that are visible to users but not actually used for scheduling, makes sense
15:00:21 <Luzi> and it seems for other openstack resources, i could simply use the "properties"
15:00:26 <Luzi> yeah eharney
15:01:16 <eharney> currently that would just have to use the description field i guess
15:02:06 <whoami-rajat> okay we are out of time
15:02:12 <whoami-rajat> we can continue the discussion next week
15:02:16 <whoami-rajat> or on the #openstack-cinder channel
15:02:23 <whoami-rajat> please take a look at the review requests
15:02:30 <whoami-rajat> and next week we will have the midcycle-2
15:02:31 <happystacker> thks
15:02:33 <whoami-rajat> so see you all there
15:02:35 <whoami-rajat> thanks everyone!
15:02:37 <crohmann> Thank you all!
15:02:39 <whoami-rajat> #endmeeting