14:00:00 #startmeeting kolla 14:00:00 Meeting started Wed Oct 26 14:00:00 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mnasiadka. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:00 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:00 The meeting name has been set to 'kolla' 14:00:04 #topic rollcall 14:00:05 o/ 14:00:08 o/ 14:00:21 o/ 14:00:43 o/ 14:01:11 \o 14:01:44 \o 14:02:03 o/ 14:02:14 o7 14:02:34 #topic agenda 14:02:34 * CI status 14:02:34 * Release tasks 14:02:34 * Regular stable releases (first meeting in a month) 14:02:34 * Current cycle planning 14:02:35 * Additional agenda (from whiteboard) 14:02:35 * Open discussion 14:02:38 #topic CI status 14:02:53 I think we have some gate breakage due to EPEL 9 14:03:18 yes, do we want to wait or make stuff non-voting? 14:04:23 well, probably most of the patches would be happier if we would really build and publish - and most of them are rocky9 related 14:04:45 is it going to fix itself, or is someone proposing to change the mirror in the config? 14:05:44 not sure yet, this has happened before, but I'm not involved in any redhatty things 14:06:20 finding a stable, reliable mirror might be helpful 14:06:29 ok, I'll check on #opendev after the meeting 14:06:37 #topic Release tasks 14:07:42 So, basically before we branch and release an rc1 - for kolla/kolla-ansible we need OpenSearch merged (still in progress, I'll add some CI to it), for kayobe we need Rocky Linux 9 patch - and probably OpenSearch followup - in progress, bbezak working on it 14:07:47 bbezak: any progress? 14:08:33 been caught up in customer work this week, will progress later this week. Got some input from ebbex 14:08:45 great 14:09:10 do we have any other patches that need to be merged in Zed? 14:09:43 I know we assumed systemd, but now that we have review velocity problems - it might be complicated 14:10:43 ok, seems none 14:10:52 #topic Current cycle planning 14:10:59 Current probably means Antelope 14:11:13 I'll tidy up PTG notes this week and send out a summary on the ML 14:11:23 I'll also populate whiteboard with priorities for this cycle 14:11:23 Ivan Halomi proposed openstack/ansible-collection-kolla master: Adding podman support https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-collection-kolla/+/852240 14:12:05 #topic Additional agenda (from whiteboard) 14:12:19 (jhorstmann) adding grafana loki (https://grafana.com/oss/loki/) as an additional log store to kolla/kolla-ansible 14:12:36 additional details on https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/KollaWhiteBoard#L53 14:13:13 yes, we have been looking at grafana loki for our log management and would like to add it to our stack, which we deploy with kolla 14:13:53 so, the question is wether kolla would be interested in having support for loki upstream? 14:14:23 I think yes, given we find reviewers to review and guide you towards merging this 14:14:32 What is the storage backend Loki would need? 14:14:36 I heard about loki some time ago and it sounds interesting to me. I didn't look closer yet, but I sure would be interested in looking at it in more detail 14:15:29 Looking at https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/operations/storage/ - doesn't ring a bell which one would be easy to add to k/k-a 14:15:42 there are a lot of different backends (https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/storage/), but we thought about starting just with local storage 14:16:11 overriding the config to use a different backend should be straight forward. e.g. an existing object store 14:16:15 I think we need to make sure local storage would work for HA 14:16:30 that might be a problem 14:17:03 loki does not have a builtin replication mechanism and relies on a distributed storage backend for HA 14:17:15 That means we're left with either Object Storage or adding Apache Cassandra 14:17:59 would be interesting to know whether "S3" also means it works on RGW 14:18:31 frickler: I have not tested that, but I think it should 14:18:39 but for starting, local storage would be fine IMO 14:19:06 on a single node - well for starting probably yes, and then we can sort out the implementation issues 14:19:36 anyway, jhorstmann can you add something about it on https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/kolla-antelope-ptg#L215 - I'll add it to cycle priorities with your name on it - and we'll see how it goes 14:20:19 sure, will do 14:20:22 thanks 14:20:43 Another topic 14:20:44 (mnasiadka) Review velocity 14:21:12 I think with Radek away (or spending minimum amount of time on reviews) - we're going to get soon in a spot that we would not like to be 14:21:58 currently me and hrw are raising k/k-a patches - that need a third person to merge them - especially those patches that are needed for Zed release 14:23:16 I can do some, but I'm really not comfortable approving rocky patches 14:23:48 I can ask cberendt whether he can spare some time, but I expect him to be similarly reluctant on that topic 14:23:59 I understand, and we're not going to be able to reach the same velocity as before soon 14:24:22 so the question then might be whether we should agree to single-approve certain things 14:24:49 Short term probably we should - for Rocky/CentOS based things 14:25:36 in the meantime I'll try to bring more SHPC colleagues to start doing reviews often - so in a couple of months time we could get more core reviewers - but unfortunately from the same company as me 14:25:41 and longer term if no cores interested in rocky turn up, that might be a reason to consider deprecating it again 14:25:54 we cannot maintain things without reviewers 14:27:05 Well, StackHPC promised to do CentOS/Rocky in Kolla/Kolla-Ansible - so I think we need to step up and have more core reviewers in a longer term 14:27:41 But with that direction, we'll need to raise exception on the single-company-commit rule for CentOS/Rocky 14:27:46 is that fine? 14:27:59 fine for me 14:28:32 ok then, we have some path forward 14:28:43 thanks 14:28:48 #topic Open discussion 14:28:53 Do we have any open points for today? 14:29:21 just mentioning that the discussion about the next ptg has started 14:29:33 #link https://openinfrafoundation.formstack.com/forms/openinfra_ptg_2023 14:29:46 Ah right, I saw the discussion around having PTG colocated with Summit 14:30:05 I think still for Kolla projects - we would prefer to have that remotely in the usual timeframe 14:30:16 * frickler won't travel anywhere, so it is virtual or nothing for me 14:30:57 I also added a comment about extending the timeframe to reduce overlap. if the TC can do, why should other projects not follow their lead? 14:31:56 but maybe I'm also just a weird unicorn with all my involvement 14:32:37 Might be, I don't have an opinion - but having a PTG in June just before the vacation season seems like loosing some time 14:32:49 then we are two unicorns :) 14:33:37 Anyway, let's see how the discussion evolves - and fill out the form for those interested 14:34:34 I don't see any other topics being raised - so let's finish for today 14:34:37 Thanks for coming! 14:34:39 #endmeeting