14:01:21 <rafaelweingartner> #startmeeting cloudkitty
14:01:21 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Mon Jun 12 14:01:21 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rafaelweingartner. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:21 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:21 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cloudkitty'
14:01:26 <rafaelweingartner> Hello guys!
14:01:33 <rafaelweingartner> Roll count
14:01:37 <priteau> o/
14:02:09 <mkarpiarz> Hi!
14:03:22 <rafaelweingartner> Awesome to see you guys here!
14:03:52 <mkarpiarz> :)
14:05:40 <rafaelweingartner> let's start with the reviews
14:05:41 <rafaelweingartner> #topic Target reviews
14:06:26 <rafaelweingartner> The patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/861806 was finally merged after the merge of  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/881757
14:06:39 <rafaelweingartner> Thank you guys for the hard work there
14:06:57 <rafaelweingartner> I guess, we can also merged https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/862824, right?
14:07:26 <priteau> This one depends on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/861786
14:08:09 <priteau> Did you address the comments from the PTG?
14:08:09 <rafaelweingartner> yes, and I still need to do some amendments there
14:08:14 <rafaelweingartner> No, not yet
14:08:18 <rafaelweingartner> I will try to do so this week
14:08:46 <rafaelweingartner> the patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/861908 also needs some tempest tests to be add
14:10:15 <priteau> I have also left some mior comments to address on this one
14:10:17 <priteau> minor
14:10:31 <rafaelweingartner> ok
14:10:36 <rafaelweingartner> I will work on them
14:10:38 <rafaelweingartner> thanks!
14:10:54 <priteau> Thank you
14:11:17 <rafaelweingartner> and then, we have the https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/880739
14:11:22 <rafaelweingartner> which is about the openSearch support
14:11:40 <priteau> We haven't had time to test migration from ES to OS yet
14:11:53 <priteau> We're hoping to do it this month
14:12:44 <rafaelweingartner> ah ok
14:12:51 <rafaelweingartner> I will review this one as well this wekk
14:12:54 <rafaelweingartner> week*
14:12:58 <rafaelweingartner> thanks for the hard work there
14:13:46 <mkarpiarz> I found no problems with this change in my test environment so it gets a +2 from me. :)
14:15:09 <priteau> Thanks mkarpiarz
14:15:14 <mkarpiarz> Do we need a migration path in place before we merge this change?
14:15:25 <rafaelweingartner> I do not think so
14:15:39 <rafaelweingartner> I mean, Kolla-ansible has something already, right?
14:15:49 <rafaelweingartner> So, it would be up to the operator doing the change
14:16:11 <rafaelweingartner> maybe we need some explanation regarding that in the release notes. What do you guys think?
14:18:19 <priteau> Migration will be managed by Kolla Ansible.
14:18:28 <priteau> But we haven't tested it so we want to verify that it works
14:19:28 <priteau> I assume the migration details will be mostly in kolla ansible release notes, but I will update the CK patch if needed.
14:20:16 <mkarpiarz> Ah, I see!
14:21:35 <rafaelweingartner> I guess a message stating that the migration is responsability of the operator or the deployment tool would be enough on the CloudKitty side
14:21:46 <rafaelweingartner> Thanks for the help!
14:25:26 <rafaelweingartner> So, moving on, we have the Monasca deprecation.
14:25:41 <rafaelweingartner> We published the warning in previous releases, and not it is the time to remove it
14:25:56 <rafaelweingartner> can I move on with a patch to remove the Monasca integration code from CloudKitty?
14:26:08 <priteau> Yes
14:26:28 <mkarpiarz> Yes
14:27:08 <rafaelweingartner> ok, I will add to my list as well =)
14:27:21 <rafaelweingartner> and that is basically it from my side
14:27:27 <rafaelweingartner> do you guys have something else to add?
14:27:47 <priteau> Nothing special from me.
14:29:12 <rafaelweingartner> Besides us three, does anybody else have something to add/ask/comment/request?
14:30:52 <mkarpiarz> What about patches removing py27 support?
14:30:58 <mkarpiarz> Like this one: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty-dashboard/+/884339?
14:31:07 <rafaelweingartner> do we need to change something in our code base?
14:31:47 <mkarpiarz> I understand the consensus is we should do this and the only reason the patch is blocked is because of a comment we want to preserve.
14:32:23 <mkarpiarz> Am I right?
14:32:38 <rafaelweingartner> actually, the patch is removing a code that is auto generated
14:32:52 <rafaelweingartner> that is why priteau called the author attention to that part
14:33:11 <rafaelweingartner> so, it means that if we want to change it, we should change in the original processs where it is created
14:33:28 <priteau> Yes, this file is generated from a script in openstack requirements
14:33:31 <mkarpiarz> Right, so basically, we don't want to edit these files?
14:33:37 <priteau> So we should have the author use the script instead.
14:33:47 <priteau> But they haven't come back to me
14:34:17 <mkarpiarz> Right, I get it now.
14:34:49 <priteau> https://opendev.org/openstack/requirements/src/branch/master/openstack_requirements/cmds/update.py#L39-L61
14:35:28 <opendevreview> Merged openstack/cloudkitty master: Allows multiple rating types for same metric for gnocchi  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cloudkitty/+/861806
14:35:56 <mkarpiarz> This looks like an easy fix then.
14:36:29 <priteau> The author has submitted many patches like this, some of them merged, e.g. https://opendev.org/openstack/requirements/src/branch/master/openstack_requirements/cmds/update.py#L39-L61
14:36:39 <priteau> I could ask on the ML what we should do.
14:36:44 <mkarpiarz> But again, we need to agree what we do with patches which are abandoned by their original authors...
14:37:07 <priteau> My opinion is that if we are interested by the patch, we update it ourselves
14:37:16 <priteau> If we are not interested, we abandon it.
14:37:23 <rafaelweingartner> I agree
14:37:32 <mkarpiarz> Same
14:39:18 <mkarpiarz> Are there any guidelines on how much time has to elapse before someone else updates a patch?
14:39:55 <rafaelweingartner> no
14:39:56 <priteau> No
14:40:11 <priteau> People come and go, it's part of open source
14:40:30 <rafaelweingartner> exactly
14:40:39 <rafaelweingartner> It is more a feeling on interacting with contributors
14:41:09 <rafaelweingartner> if they tend to ignore/not respond after a few interactiong from oru side, I would say that the patch is abandoned by the author
14:41:44 <mkarpiarz> Ah, so is there anything we can do to improve communication with contributors?
14:42:20 <mkarpiarz> We have this IRC channel and authors get email notifications about updates on their patches...
14:42:29 <rafaelweingartner> exactly
14:42:34 <rafaelweingartner> and also we have the mailing list
14:42:53 <rafaelweingartner> I guess we already do all we can to be prompt and pro-active with contributors
14:43:05 <priteau> I don't think we can do much more. Consider that for the patches like py27 update, it's not just to our repo, they might push a patch to every single openstack repo
14:43:26 <priteau> We need to focus on cloudkitty-specific patches which are more important
14:43:55 <rafaelweingartner> agreed
14:44:40 <mkarpiarz> Yes, this sounds reasonable.
14:45:49 <mkarpiarz> I guess we don't really need guidelines because with so few tickets we can discuss any situation like this individually.
14:46:06 <priteau> I am preparing an email about setup.py
14:47:03 <mkarpiarz> OK
14:47:16 <rafaelweingartner> ok, thanks!
14:47:55 <mkarpiarz> I guess that's that for now. :)
14:48:01 <rafaelweingartner> I guess so
14:48:08 <rafaelweingartner> thank you guys !
14:48:14 <mkarpiarz> Nothing else from my side.
14:48:34 <rafaelweingartner> Again, thank you all for participating.
14:48:51 <rafaelweingartner> Have a nice week.
14:48:56 <mkarpiarz> Thank you!
14:48:59 <rafaelweingartner> #endmeeting