14:02:44 <jbernard> #startmeeting cinder
14:02:44 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Jun 18 14:02:44 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jbernard. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:02:44 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:02:44 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
14:02:48 <jbernard> #topic roll call
14:02:57 <jbernard> o/ hello
14:02:58 <nileshthathagar> hi
14:03:23 <agalica> o/
14:03:25 <raghavendrat_> hello
14:03:34 * fungi is around for this one
14:03:41 <yuval> 0/
14:03:42 <whoami-rajat> hi
14:05:08 <sfernand> hi
14:05:23 <hvlcchao1> hi
14:05:52 <agamboa> o/
14:05:56 <kpdev> hi
14:06:04 <Sai> o/
14:07:53 <jbernard> welcome everyone
14:08:07 <jbernard> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-flamingo-meetings
14:08:57 <jbernard> #topic followup
14:09:25 <gireesh> hi
14:09:38 <jbernard> 1) gate issues with image encryption patch
14:09:57 <jbernard> mhen: ^ any insights there? i haven't looked at the most recent failure
14:10:09 <jbernard> but it seemed like the failures we were seeing were unrelated
14:10:45 <fungi> were they post_failure results?
14:10:55 <fungi> ovh's swift was having a bad day yesterday
14:11:01 <hemna> mep
14:11:44 <jbernard> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/926298
14:12:42 <jbernard> fungi: yes
14:12:51 <jbernard> in nfs-tempest-full test
14:13:39 <fungi> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Status is the OpenDev status feed
14:13:47 <jbernard> ok, maybe a recheck there will help, fungi do you know if ovh's issues are resolved today?
14:14:28 <fungi> per the above, we took them out of the configuration around 22:39 utc
14:14:32 <eharney> fyi cinder pep8 is failing everywhere until https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/952687 lands
14:14:56 <fungi> we haven't tried to revert the removal yet, but won't until log uploads there are working correctly of course
14:15:24 <hemna> eharney we found that one internally testing against antalope
14:15:36 <eharney> hemna: heh, so did we
14:15:51 <hemna> Eike is a new dev on our team.
14:16:13 <jbernard> nice
14:16:37 <jbernard> ok, once that one lands we can recheck mhen's patch
14:16:42 <hemna> yah I'm stoked he found a few issues and put up a few upstream fixes
14:18:14 <rmnijgh_> Hi All, I'd like to request a review for this issue if thats possible https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/863600
14:18:18 <jbernard> 2) barbican is still broken for stable/2025.1
14:18:42 <jbernard> /but/ octavia has been fixed and the patch has a +2, so hopefully that will resolve soon
14:18:53 <jbernard> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/barbican/+/949096
14:19:58 <jbernard> 3) I updated launchpad with flamingo series and milestones, so blueprints can target the current dev branch
14:20:38 <jbernard> that's all for followup from last week
14:20:59 <jbernard> #topic topics
14:21:03 <jbernard> :)
14:21:34 <jbernard> very quickly, pep8 tests are failing
14:21:46 <jbernard> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/952687
14:22:16 <jbernard> this is waiting a final gate run before being merged, that should happen reasonably soon
14:22:48 <jbernard> next is fungi's item, bridging the gap
14:23:02 <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 yesterday:
14:23:15 <fungi> (er, monday actually)
14:23:17 <fungi> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/NTBNI7YIDCWBR6BTPEKVZIODWTVUIOXO/ BtG metrics analysis
14:23:28 <fungi> also could be worthwhile to revisit her previous post in that thread going over the contributor and survey results (and anyone who hasn't filled those out for epoxy, please see if you can find a few minutes to do that!)
14:23:51 <fungi> as a follow-up activity, we've started doing some team-specific analyses, focusing on teams that had multiple contributor and maintainer survey responses, i had a similar topic in nova's meeting yesterday
14:24:06 <fungi> the contributor survey had 2 responses for cinder and both respondents had contributed for at least 2 years and were contributors to at least two other open source projects
14:24:15 <fungi> most feedback was relatively neutral (averaging 2.5-4 out of 5) with the lowest scores being on "Changes you propose are reviewed in a timely manner" and "Automated test failures quickly direct you to problems in your changes"
14:24:27 <fungi> the top challenge reported was trouble with review attention, while additional feedback mentioned unstable test jobs leading to a lot of rechecks and longer delays getting approvals or merging approved changes
14:24:35 <fungi> the maintainer survey also had 2 responses with mostly higher scores than the cntributor survey (averaging 4-4.5), except for "Changes you propose are reviewed in a timely manner" which averaged 1.0
14:24:44 <fungi> contributing challenges reported were similar to those from the other survey (review attention), while the top challenges with reviewing were from contributors failing to address review comments or ci failures and insufficient familiarity with some parts of the code
14:24:53 <fungi> looking at metrics we gathered from gerrit for the past 5 development cycles, we saw caracal was particularly slow for reviews (also observed for nova and their guess was slurp), but then things got somewhat better again in the past year
14:25:06 <fungi> finding some way to improve the time to first review might help keep contributors, new and established, involved and engaged; we observed similar trends in some other projects and suspect it may be more pronounced where there's heavier reliance on third-party ci results?
14:25:45 <fungi> unstable ci testing also featured in responses, so could indicate a need to re-prioritize fixes to tests or underlying test frameworks (devstack?)
14:26:38 <fungi> it looks like cinder is mostly merging as many changes as are proposed, though there may be some slight increase in backlog in the past few years
14:27:07 <fungi> we think that might be related to people proposing more changes late in the cycle
14:27:36 <fungi> sorry, i know that's a pretty big info dump (i tried to pare it down as much as possible)
14:28:48 <fungi> do note that we're pretty early in the process of analyzing these sorts of 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
14:29:07 <jbernard> fungi: thank you for the summary, i haven't had a chance to yet process the ml mail, there's quite a bit to think about
14:29:10 <fungi> we also aren't at the point where we have much in the way of guidance or recommendations yet
14:29:14 <hemna> lots of info
14:30:04 <fungi> anyway, i'm happy to answer questions or take feedback either here in the meeting or in the cinder channel later
14:30:39 <jbernard> i agree, the results are close to what i would have predicted.  even though it's not surprising, the date will allow us to have a more informed conversation going forward
14:30:46 <fungi> we're of course planning to continue with this sort of surveying and metrics analysis over coming release cycles
14:31:26 <fungi> and yeah, a big part of this is establishing a baseline so that we can better gauge whether future attempts at improving some aspects of this have any observable impact
14:32:14 <whoami-rajat> the review bandwidth has been a concern for i-dont-know-how-many cycles, we've done several efforts to improve it but seems like there is still scope of improvement there
14:32:15 <jbernard> ok, let's make this a followup for next meeting so folks have time to process
14:32:15 <fungi> anyway, i didn't have anything else on this topic at the moment, if there are no immediate questions
14:33:38 <fungi> in the nova discussion yesterday, we talked about how it might be helpful to have more transparent communication to contributors when the sorts of changes they're proposing are unlikely to get reviewed in the foreseeable future, and to avoid over-committing on specs whose changes are unlikely to get reviewed
14:34:42 <fungi> basically there's no shame in saying that there's more work to do than there are people to do it, and while interest in getting some small change or feature implemented is laudable, what the project really needs is help shouldering the overall maintenance burden
14:35:16 <jbernard> well said
14:35:48 <whoami-rajat> one of the key things we've identified is that there are more contributors than reviewers hence we started asking contributors to review (also proposed review guidelines to ease the task) so they can receive reviews in return
14:36:03 <whoami-rajat> some of the contributors we know do this actively which is really good
14:36:54 <fungi> it's good if their reviews help reduce the workload on the final reviewers, or help those new contributors gain a deeper understanding of the project so they might in time be able to help maintain it
14:38:02 <whoami-rajat> exactly
14:40:22 <fungi> i guess there are no more questions for now, so i'm happy to stop monopolizing the meeting ;)
14:41:06 <jbernard> fungi: thanks for presenting this!
14:41:12 <fungi> any time, my pleasure
14:41:53 <rmnijgh_> I'd still like to ask if anyone could review this issue when he/her has time for it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/863600
14:44:20 <jbernard> rmnijgh_: noted in the etherpad
14:44:26 <jbernard> #topic open discussion
14:44:51 <raghavendrat_> we have couple of bug fixes in Dalmatian. Is backport to Caracal allowed ?
14:44:57 <hemna> rmnijgh_ you might want to take a look at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/836083
14:46:33 <hemna> I've had that patch out there for a while...
14:47:47 <jbernard> raghavendrat_: that's 2024.1, i believe so yes
14:48:01 <jbernard> raghavendrat_: it's the last non-eol stable release currently
14:48:38 <raghavendrat_> ok, thanks
14:48:55 <fungi> yeah, scheduled to reach end of maintenance in ~3.5 months
14:49:06 <rmnijgh_> hemna: I think my earlier mentioned issue (863600) fixes the same problem. So that one might not be needed? (not sure)
14:52:14 <hemna> well my fix doesn't require pulling all volumes from the db every 60 seconds either.
14:56:56 <jbernard> ok, last call
14:58:07 <jbernard> thank you everyone, have a good rest of your day
14:58:11 <jbernard> #endmeeting