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