15:03:13 <tmazur> #startmeeting horizon
15:03:13 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed May 28 15:03:13 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is tmazur. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:03:13 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:03:13 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon'
15:03:26 <tmazur> Hello everyone and welcome to the weekly meeting!
15:03:45 <chubinidzedr> Hi ;)
15:04:01 <tmazur> Today's agenda is here: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/horizon-release-priorities#L40
15:04:26 <tmazur> Thanks anfimovir :)
15:04:40 <anfimovir> np ;))
15:05:57 <anfimovir> We can start from one open question
15:06:07 <anfimovir> 950966: Instances replaced to Servers | Part 1 | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/950966
15:06:16 <anfimovir> What do your think about?
15:07:26 <tmazur> We can talk about it right after we follow the order :)
15:07:30 <tmazur> #topic Notices
15:07:55 <anfimovir> sorry
15:08:09 <tmazur> Schedule reminder: this week is R-18 week. Flamingo Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html
15:09:08 <tmazur> Nothing urgent is happening right now, Flamingo-2 is in the beginning of July
15:10:02 <tmazur> I missed last week since I was on PTO, so we cut Flamingo-1 just yesterday
15:11:15 <tmazur> So all the recent changes are included as well
15:12:13 <tmazur> Moving forward
15:12:14 <tmazur> #topic Release priorities
15:13:04 <tmazur> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/horizon-release-priorities#L44
15:13:17 <tmazur> jjasek thanks for your reviews
15:13:21 <chubinidzedr> I'd like to discuss moving to Font Awesome 6:)
15:13:32 <chubinidzedr> otherwise it will be stuck for a long time
15:13:43 <rdopiera> when did that become a release priority?
15:14:54 <anfimovir> this create problems with source installation, no problem, moved to open reviews ;)
15:15:55 <tmazur> rdopiera you're right. anfimovir, chubinidzedr we try to keep release priorities clean and clear. If it's anything urgent, we can put it in open reviews on the top
15:16:43 <anfimovir> sorry, ok
15:16:44 <tmazur> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/949141   <--- rdopiera, jjasek what do you think about this one?
15:17:04 <rdopiera> the instance password and volume type are also not priorities for this cycle?
15:17:28 <anfimovir> Radomir, done, moved too.
15:17:30 <tmazur> yes
15:18:00 <rdopiera> we can make things priorities, but it requires some agreement
15:18:37 <rdopiera> tmazur: what's the process for this, shouldn't we have a warning first?
15:18:43 <tmazur> Priorities usually are being discussed on PTG
15:18:54 <jjasek> tmazur, sorry I did not review/test this Drop support patch yet.
15:19:45 <rdopiera> when we deprecate settings and such, we usually have a warning one release in advance, I think dropping support for a python version is even more important?
15:19:51 <tmazur> So we don't just add new priorities without discussion
15:20:03 <tmazur> rdopiera, sure
15:20:50 <tmazur> I was asking do we want to prioritize a warning for this cycle?
15:20:54 <rdopiera> anfimovir: is there an urgent need to drop python 3.9?
15:21:52 <tmazur> anfimovir also please add more information into the commit message. Usually we add links to the agreements and reasons we deprecate things
15:22:39 <anfimovir> Python 3.9 already dropped from nova side, we can do it  until flamingo release.
15:23:00 <anfimovir> [2]https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/runtimes/2025.2.html#python
15:23:21 <anfimovir> @tmazur, ok, no problem
15:23:50 <tmazur> anfimovir thanks
15:24:17 <opendevreview> Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/horizon master: Drop support for Python 3.9  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/949141
15:24:25 <anfimovir> commit message updated
15:27:05 <rdopiera> but other than "others are doing it", is there a technical reason for it? do we need to use some feature that doesn't work on 3.9?
15:27:36 <anfimovir> from this side, you right.
15:28:46 <noonedeadpunk> I think djhango 5.0 does not support py39 anyway?
15:29:20 <noonedeadpunk> at least according to their docs
15:29:22 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/5.2/faq/install/#what-python-version-can-i-use-with-django
15:29:39 <noonedeadpunk> and seemingly there's no support for 3.13 otherwise
15:29:40 <rdopiera> are we switching to django 5.0 this cycle?
15:30:24 <noonedeadpunk> I guess it depends if you want to add py3.13 support
15:30:26 <rdopiera> I think it's useful to have the 3.9 tests running, if only to see when they start to fail because something we depend on doesn't support 3.9
15:30:42 <rdopiera> we will need to add py3.13 tests anyways
15:31:04 <noonedeadpunk> but Django 4.2 has no 3.13
15:31:14 <noonedeadpunk> so it looks like either 3.9 or 3.13
15:31:27 <noonedeadpunk> basically EL9 or Debian 13 choice :)
15:32:00 <rdopiera> "This is not mandatory testing in the 2025.2 cycle, and there is no guarantee that the OpenStack 2025.2 release will support Python 3.13."
15:32:21 <noonedeadpunk> yeah, right, it's optional
15:32:28 <noonedeadpunk> it's up to project to decide
15:32:34 <rdopiera> so looks like we have one more cycle, we should probably make django 5.0 a release priority for G
15:32:45 <noonedeadpunk> just highlighting that there's unlikely a possibility to have both
15:33:10 <noonedeadpunk> and also it's Django>=5.1.3
15:33:13 <rdopiera> thanks, that's valuable information
15:33:29 <noonedeadpunk> 5.0 have neither of them
15:33:30 <rdopiera> we will have to take it into account when planning the next cycle
15:33:45 <noonedeadpunk> ++
15:34:05 <tmazur> Thanks noonedeadpunk
15:35:16 <noonedeadpunk> btw. Django 4.2 seems to EOL before 2025.2 will EOL
15:35:28 <tmazur> So if we prioritize Django 5.1.3 for G, we can for now do a warning about 3.9
15:36:18 <noonedeadpunk> so in case of discovered CVE in Django, it would be not a pleasent situation
15:36:20 <rdopiera> tmazur: a release not would be sufficient, I guess?
15:36:53 <noonedeadpunk> `Django 4.2 LTS security support ends in April 2026`
15:37:14 <rdopiera> noonedeadpunk: personally it's nothing new for me, I keep backporting cve patches for the older versions of horizon that we still support all the time
15:38:45 <noonedeadpunk> yeah, you probably can monkey patch some things in horizon...
15:38:55 <rdopiera> absolutely not
15:39:18 <noonedeadpunk> but how are you covering Django vulnarabilities i nHorizon then?
15:39:48 <noonedeadpunk> anyway, this is probably a different discussion for a different time :)
15:39:58 <rdopiera> noonedeadpunk: I backport django patches to older versions of django that we package with the open stack distribution
15:40:25 <tmazur> cve patches very rarely have conflicts actually
15:40:33 <tmazur> so we just backport
15:40:42 <noonedeadpunk> um. so you sugest all horizon users to maintain own forks of Django and backport on their own?
15:40:59 <rdopiera> noonedeadpunk: or they could pay us to do it for them ;-)
15:41:04 <noonedeadpunk> right
15:41:11 <rdopiera> but no, I'm not
15:41:18 <rdopiera> but there is no good solution here, is there?
15:41:26 <tmazur> Anyway, we will prioritize 5.1.3 for G
15:41:39 <noonedeadpunk> except prioritizing 5.1.3 - no, there's not
15:41:44 <noonedeadpunk> and yeah
15:41:45 <rdopiera> we are not going to be able to swtich to django 5.1 this cycle, it's too late for such large changes
15:41:49 <tmazur> And try to release it in G-1
15:41:57 <noonedeadpunk> I agree that non-SLURP will go EOL very fast
15:42:00 <tmazur> It's before EOL
15:45:35 <tmazur> Ok, let's move to the next topic.
15:46:12 <tmazur> #topic Bug deputy report
15:46:21 <tmazur> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/horizon-release-priorities#L52
15:49:12 <tmazur> rdopiera thanks for your review, I'll need to take a look as well
15:49:48 <tmazur> anfimovir do you want to discuss your open question now?
15:50:47 <anfimovir> Yes
15:51:03 <anfimovir> It seems to me that the decision on swift looks strange, we support one option, but the other one is the same (the difference is not big) - no.
15:51:05 <tmazur> #topic Open discussion
15:51:59 <tmazur> Could you please elaborate?
15:52:19 <anfimovir> Please find time read both case in bug deputy
15:52:37 <anfimovir> We can back to this question in next week.
15:52:45 <tmazur> Ok
15:52:46 <anfimovir> I have talk about
15:52:53 <anfimovir> Open questions 950966: Instances replaced to Servers | Part 1 | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/950966
15:55:41 <noonedeadpunk> I think I tried to raise my confusion/proposal regarding Instances naming back in e0ne PTL days, but there was some argument against that, alike to term being well established in Horizon.
15:56:18 <tmazur> Same with project/tenants
15:56:25 <noonedeadpunk> But this still does not dissolve the fact, that it's a very unique in the platform as a whole, as the term is not used anywhere
15:56:35 <noonedeadpunk> well, project/tenants is a bit different
15:56:40 <anfimovir> Tenants already complete replaced to Projects
15:56:45 <anfimovir> We finish it in 2025.2
15:56:45 <noonedeadpunk> It's incomplete migration between terms
15:57:05 <noonedeadpunk> as in keystonev2 api they were named as tenants iirc
15:57:22 <noonedeadpunk> But I can't recall nova calling servers as instances...
15:57:33 <anfimovir> Instance/Server really create problems for users.
15:57:33 <noonedeadpunk> Could be I joined openstack too late to remember that ofc
15:58:02 <tmazur> I wasn't there either when the decision was made
15:58:21 <tmazur> Is there any documentation for reference? Probably not?
15:58:24 <noonedeadpunk> meaning, we can have another round of discussion about it :D
15:58:42 <tmazur> I would suggest the ext PTG
15:58:48 <anfimovir> Radomir, what do you think about?
15:58:58 <tmazur> Discussions "in person" are always way more productive
15:59:11 <noonedeadpunk> about previous round of this topic which was years ago? Even if it was documented, I will never-ever find it
15:59:31 <noonedeadpunk> It was somewhere around 2017 or 2016...
15:59:56 <tmazur> I was not much with Horizon at this interval, so I was not there
16:00:13 <rdopiera> anfimovir: personally I think we have more important things to fix, but I won't reject such changes if someomne else wants to do the work
16:00:43 <anfimovir> Ok, I do it in next week..
16:00:47 <noonedeadpunk> the only concerns here, is that the change will invalidate docs, some guides with screenshots, etc
16:00:49 <noonedeadpunk> translations
16:01:03 <rdopiera> anfimovir: I'm on pto next month
16:01:07 <tmazur> anfimovir it will be also helpful to write it to mailing list
16:01:10 <noonedeadpunk> nothing too terrible, but amount might be big
16:01:25 <noonedeadpunk> great point tmazur
16:01:38 <tmazur> Anyway, let's talk next time, I have another meeting to join
16:01:53 <tmazur> Thanks everyone for joining and good discussions!
16:01:58 <noonedeadpunk> thanks for handling the meeting!
16:02:01 <tmazur> See you next week!
16:02:08 <jjasek> Thank you, bye bye!
16:02:09 <anfimovir> See you.
16:02:13 <rdopiera> o/
16:02:13 <tmazur> #endmeeting