14:01:46 <jbernard> #startmeeting cinder
14:01:46 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Sep  3 14:01:46 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jbernard. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:46 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:46 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
14:01:52 <jbernard> #topic roll call
14:01:54 <jbernard> o/
14:01:59 <hvlcchao1> o/
14:01:59 <agalica> o/
14:02:01 <vivek__> o/
14:02:04 <jbernard> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-flamingo-meetings
14:02:06 <whoami-rajat__> Hi
14:02:29 <jayaanand> o/
14:02:40 <daksh> Hi can you guys please review IBM patches?
14:03:04 <noonedeadpunk> o/
14:03:17 <simondodsley> o/
14:03:26 <Sai> o/
14:03:52 <simondodsley> dakash: make sure they arein the reviews etherpad and they we will looked at - there is a large backlog
14:03:53 <flelain> o/
14:04:37 <rosmaita> o/
14:04:46 <gireesh> o/
14:06:13 <sfernand> hi
14:06:38 <daksh> I have added the links of patches in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-flamingo-meetings
14:07:39 <jbernard> Ok, welcome everyone
14:07:45 <simondodsley> daksh: i moved them to the review etherpad
14:07:46 <jbernard> let's see here
14:07:55 <noonedeadpunk> is reviews etherpad is mentioned somewhere to find it ?
14:08:04 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-flamingo-reviews
14:08:17 <jbernard> daksh: im very aware of the ibm patches, i issued rechecks yesterday to get thing into shape, there should be movement today
14:08:46 <jbernard> it's wednesday, already! :/
14:08:48 <noonedeadpunk> I know that it's here, but was not able to find it otherwise
14:09:08 <daksh> Thanks jbernard...Kinda important for our release
14:09:15 <noonedeadpunk> (like in https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/latest/contributor/contributing.html)
14:09:20 <simondodsley> along with everyone elses...
14:09:46 <agalica> Hi all - I'm from Hitachi.  This is our first time doing this (we took over from Japan), and we didn’t anticipate how long it would take to get the CI going and reviews.  In addition, the CI on the OpenDev server was completely broken the last couple days (timeouts and whatnot), and we were fighting that.  We were wondering if and how we could get an exception / extension, and if so how we would go about that.  This
14:09:57 <flelain> simondodsley: +1 :P
14:10:16 <agalica> l not be happy!  I guess we're not the only ones with an important release, haha
14:11:30 <jayaanand> i have to rebase due to merge conflict. can you please look at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/944964. Failed at gate job due to conflict
14:11:53 <jbernard> we are in R-4 currently
14:11:56 <jbernard> #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html
14:12:14 <whoami-rajat__> Sorry to interrupt but looks like the recent meetings have been full of review requests from the start of the meeting. There is a proper structure that we should follow and kindly wait for the open discussion section for such queries. Just sharing my thoughts.
14:12:16 <jbernard> i still have some ibm patches to work on today, among many others
14:12:43 <flelain> whoami-rajat: agreed
14:13:00 <simondodsley> jbernanrd: are the other cores looking at patches as well? Seems like you are being left with a lot to do on your own
14:13:22 <simondodsley> jbernard: ^
14:13:31 <jbernard> to my knowledge, yes
14:13:55 <jbernard> rosmaita and I worked together yesterday for a bit looking over the SVF stuff
14:14:02 <vdhakad> Hi Brian, I’ve addressed your comment on the patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/925450. Could you please take another look when you get a chance? The +2 you provided yesterday is now outdated.
14:14:15 <simondodsley> whoami-rajat__: probbaly because there are so mnay, it's close to freeze and people are concerned.
14:14:18 <rosmaita> vdhakad: ok, that should be easy
14:14:43 <noonedeadpunk> is that open disucssion type of the meeting? or some agenda is expected?
14:14:46 <vdhakad> rosmaita: thanks!
14:14:53 <jbernard> #topic annoucments
14:14:55 <jbernard> sorry
14:14:59 <simondodsley> i agree with whoami-rajat__ though. We should follow the structire and not just dump review requests in this meeting. The etherpad is there for a reason
14:15:08 <jbernard> yes please
14:15:56 <jbernard> ok, R-4 :)
14:16:17 <jbernard> looking at feature patches that i we didn't have time for last week (holiday)
14:16:20 <jbernard> and bug fixes
14:17:15 <whoami-rajat__> simondodsley: i understand but thats been the case since a long time and shouldn’t be the reason for it. I mean people dumping their review request all over the meeting won’t help getting any better attention to them. Sorry again and will let the meeting continue
14:18:02 <jbernard> I wanted to remind everyone,
14:18:24 <jbernard> if you create a release note that accompanies your changes, please make sure that it renders correctly
14:18:38 <jbernard> there is a docs job that will run if you add or change a release note
14:18:57 <jbernard> and a link there to the rendered result, it's worth looking at to make sure things look right (and good)
14:19:42 <jbernard> that will save some time
14:20:44 <jbernard> RC-1 is next week, so we have about 1 week remaining
14:21:14 <jbernard> if you have time to do reviews of other patches, please do so, remember you can always ask questions / collaborate in our IRC channel
14:21:56 <jbernard> that is all i have for annoucments, it's a very busy time with lots to do
14:22:27 <jbernard> i am aware of the review needs, if there is something technical that needs to be worked out, this is the place
14:22:32 <simondodsley> To all that are adding review requests to the etherpad, please use common courtesy and add you new requests to the bottom of the appropriate section (features or bugfixes), not to the top, just because you think it will get you higher priority.
14:23:10 <jbernard> for general review requests, i look at the etherpad daily, that is the place for those
14:23:52 <cardoe> So is there any hash tag used for review priority or ordering in gerrit?
14:24:01 * noonedeadpunk have a question regarding general collaboration approaches on feature-related patches and spec/spec-less
14:24:14 <cardoe> Yeah what noonedeadpunk said.
14:24:33 <agalica> Hi jbernard -- I'm with Hitachi and I'm trying to get clarity on the release and whether or not we would need an extension or not.  We're passing Zuul and local tempest tests, but do not have a CI to upload tests, nor the reviews required (need reviews!)
14:24:34 <jbernard> cardoe: there is the Review-Priority vote on the patch itself
14:25:11 <jbernard> cardoe: is that what you're looking for?
14:25:36 <jbernard> noonedeadpunk: shoot
14:25:47 <noonedeadpunk> question: If I want to add configuration option to cinder-backup - does it require a spec to be written, or jsut a blueprint woudl be enough?
14:26:02 <noonedeadpunk> for instance I come up with https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder-specs/+/958838/2/specs/2026.1/restrict-backup-container-creation.rst
14:26:06 <jbernard> agalica: it depends on the content of the change mostly, CI is generally required, but i would need to know more
14:26:16 <cardoe> Honestly just looking to start getting engaged. I'll likely have a team member be the main person. I've just been following some patches which get reviews and pass tests but haven't necessarily landed.
14:26:35 <noonedeadpunk> but it's quite a trivial change/feature to implement
14:26:53 <cardoe> In Ironic we add a hashtag "ironic-week-prio" and that's what folks can search for to review.
14:26:54 <noonedeadpunk> and now I see that simmilar things are going spec-less
14:27:01 <agalica> jbernard: we added new featuers, and can provide CI output to show that the CI passes.  Problematically, we underestimated the time it would take to get all of this running, along with a escalation that came up at the worst time.  So, we have passing CI and can provide evidence of such
14:27:36 <agalica> We have our 3 patches in the etherpad.  They had been added to the top, but I moved them lower (wasn't even thinking they'd be higher priority at the top)
14:27:51 <jbernard> cardoe: can you link me an example?
14:28:12 <jbernard> noonedeadpunk: generally we /should/ have a spec, even if it's not particularly verbose
14:28:13 <cardoe> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/954755
14:28:31 <jbernard> noonedeadpunk: it helps with tracking, cycle highlights, and release notes
14:28:40 <noonedeadpunk> ++
14:28:51 <jbernard> noonedeadpunk: and seperating bugs from driver features, to general feature work
14:29:58 <simondodsley> i like the hashtag idea, but who has permission to set it? Can't have everything adding the hashtag or it becomes pointless
14:29:59 <agalica> jbernard: new features are: new array, replication, snapshot resizing
14:30:14 <jbernard> agalica: i cant make any promises, but if it's on the ehterpad ill at least look at it and try to comment with what we may need
14:30:32 <noonedeadpunk> TL;DR the spec is regarding adding an option `backup_create_containers` for operators to limit ability of creating new paths on backends by users. IS that overall sound like a sane idea? I'm not asking for review now or anything, but more of a quick vibe check :)
14:30:43 <jbernard> simondodsley: we have Review-Priority, which i think cores can manipulate
14:31:08 <agalica> jbernard: ok, thank you.  It would mean a lot as this is a very important release (like everyone else's)
14:31:11 <simondodsley> jbernard: agreed, but i don't see it being leveraged that often
14:31:19 <jbernard> agalica: there /should/ be CI for things like that
14:31:42 <agalica> jbernard: yes, I know.  We do have the CI working manually, just not set up to upload
14:31:55 <agalica> (or automated)
14:32:38 <agalica> we have a PuTTy log of the tempest output and can provide other formats if necessary
14:32:46 <simondodsley> agalica: it has to be automated so that gerrit can kick it off to run cinder and os-brick patches for things other than your own patches
14:32:47 <jbernard> cardoe, simondodsley: i will look at how ironic manage it
14:33:15 <agalica> simondodsley: understood.  That will be one of the first things we do after this patch is behind us
14:33:27 * Anoop_Shukla Need reviews for the Patch: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/956221 This has NetApp CI and NetApp approvals. Need core team to take a look at the patch..
14:33:30 <cardoe> We actually let anyone set it but the cores police it.
14:33:33 <noonedeadpunk> everyone can set a hashtag
14:33:34 <noonedeadpunk> afaiuk
14:33:59 <agalica> We aren't trying to get out of it, we simply ran out of time for this (but we pass CI locally with our storage, and have QAd the code, of course)
14:34:18 <noonedeadpunk> but it would be really nice to place a review etherpad to some searchable place
14:34:29 <jbernard> cardoe: im willing to consider it, but the biggest concern is that it becomes another thing to do - and we have plenty of those already :)
14:34:32 <simondodsley> cardoe: seems like an extra layer of core management when they don't have the time to do the current stuff, including Review-Priority
14:34:36 <noonedeadpunk> and having it mentioned on contributors page would be really nice
14:34:39 <cardoe> Not asking ya to change.
14:34:49 <cardoe> I just didn't know about the review etherpad
14:34:58 <noonedeadpunk> ++ ^
14:35:01 <jbernard> the problem with review-priority is that the reviewer may not know what the priority is for the submitter
14:35:03 <cardoe> Like noonedeadpunk said if it was linked that was good.
14:35:32 <jbernard> it would be helpful if, given a largish set of patches, to know exactly which ones were most important
14:35:35 <noonedeadpunk> I spent like 10 mins for sure to search for the link after you mentioned there is some etherpad for it
14:36:11 <simondodsley> it's in the main meeting agenda etherpad now
14:36:56 <cardoe> sorry have a 1:1 with my boss right now so multi-tasking and failing
14:37:08 <jbernard> cardoe: no worries, thanks for the input
14:37:45 <jbernard> noonedeadpunk: sorry, i thought it was in the etherpad header, but i was wrong.  It's there now
14:38:14 <noonedeadpunk> nice
14:38:17 <noonedeadpunk> thanks !
14:42:25 <agalica> jbernard: Please do not take this as rushing you, but do you maybe have an ETA on when you can let us know what we need to provide you (if possible)?  If you do not know, that is ok.  I just need to write up a report for my boss as to the steps we're taking
14:43:06 <jbernard> agalica: you need automated CI, this is our policy
14:43:34 <agalica> ok.  If we can set that up this week, can we still get in the release?
14:43:39 <jbernard> agalica: we make occasional exceptions, but i am worried about that being used to often
14:45:39 <jbernard> agalica: it depends on the size and complexity of the patches, and wether they're in really good shape, not to mention all of the other patches that have been waiting longer... impossible, no; but probably unlikely given where we are at in the release cycle. techincally features are frozen and we're looking at bug fixes now
14:46:04 <agalica> ok, thanks
14:51:21 <jbernard> we have 10 minutes remaining, but if there is nothing else, we can all get back to it, last call
14:52:31 <jayaanand> NetApp patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/944964 failed at gate job due to merge conflict. Need re-look from core reviewers
14:53:18 <jbernard> jayaanand: ack
14:53:26 <jayaanand> Thank you!
14:55:13 <jbernard> ok, thank you everyone, see you in #openstack-cinder if you need anything
14:55:15 <jbernard> #endmeeting