13:01:37 <mnasiadka> #startmeeting kolla 13:01:37 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Jun 26 13:01:37 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mnasiadka. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:01:37 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:01:37 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'kolla' 13:01:40 <mnasiadka> #topic rollcall 13:01:42 <mnasiadka> now 13:01:42 <mnasiadka> o/ 13:01:43 <bbezak> o/ 13:01:44 <SvenKieske> o/ 13:01:47 <darmach> o/ 13:01:47 <r-krcek> o/ 13:01:52 <mhiner> o/ 13:02:44 <mnasiadka> #topic agenda 13:02:44 <mnasiadka> * Announcements 13:02:44 <mnasiadka> * CI status 13:02:44 <mnasiadka> * Release tasks 13:02:44 <mnasiadka> * Regular stable releases (first meeting in a month) 13:02:46 <mnasiadka> * Current cycle planning 13:02:46 <mnasiadka> * Additional agenda (from whiteboard) 13:02:48 <mnasiadka> * Open discussion 13:02:48 <mnasiadka> #topic Announcements 13:03:03 <mnasiadka> next OpenInfra PTG[1] which will take place October 21-25, 2024 virtually! 13:03:14 <mnasiadka> [1] PTG Site: https://openinfra.dev/ptg/ 13:03:24 <mnasiadka> [2] PTG Registration: http://ptg.openinfra.dev/ 13:03:28 <mnasiadka> #topic CI status 13:03:33 <mnasiadka> So, Koalas - how is the CI? 13:04:33 <mnasiadka> I assume green that nobody is complaining :) 13:04:43 <mnasiadka> #topic Release tasks 13:04:44 <SvenKieske> I personally didn't notice any strange failures, but I didn't look at overall CI status, just the on the reviews I did. 13:05:20 <mnasiadka> Today is R-14 week of the Dalmatian (2024.2) cycle - nothing for us 13:05:49 <mnasiadka> #topic Current cycle planning 13:06:05 <mnasiadka> So, what features do we need to get it - probably Ubuntu Noble (24.04) 13:06:16 <mnasiadka> darmach: you're taking that together with some advice from bbezak and me, right? 13:06:33 <darmach> Yes, that's right 13:07:29 <bbezak> and some tasks from last cycle 13:07:34 <bbezak> like OVN BGP agent 13:07:56 <jovial> I would like to get kayobe podman supported landed sooner rather than later. I added some dependent patches to the meeting agenda. Would it be possible to prioritize these? 13:07:59 <mnasiadka> any other features that we can't release without? 13:08:39 <kevko> i have older patch for CI and disk preparation for swift -> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/913942 << it's non-voting and probably we used to don't try to resolve ...but from time to time the old version of disk preparation is just not working ... this is working always ... 13:09:27 <SvenKieske> do we need to get the rmq/slurp stuff in before? 13:09:56 <mnasiadka> mattcrees: how is it going with newer rmq releases in antelope and bobcat? 13:09:57 <bbezak> yeah, this is needs to land in C 13:10:11 <SvenKieske> and what happened to the systemd logging stuff? I can't remember any patches in that regard, but I guess it's only "nice to have"? 13:10:45 <mnasiadka> yeah, rather yes 13:10:53 <mnasiadka> I'm focusing on top priority and must have for now ;) 13:10:59 <SvenKieske> ok 13:11:20 <mnasiadka> kevko: SvenKieske has -1 on your patch, can you guys resolve it first? ;-) 13:12:08 <mattcrees> For rmq it's getting close, I'm looking for reviews for two backport chains right now. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla/+/922605 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/922607 13:12:27 <mattcrees> Then the main patch should be good to go https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla/+/918974 13:12:31 <mnasiadka> bbezak: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla/+/916617 - can you take RP from that change? 13:13:11 <kevko> mnasiadka: well, actually ..i am not sure if I can ..because -1 was because of usage bash_result ; if $? -eq 0 ...... but i am using that on several places in script ... 13:14:08 <bbezak> done mnasiadka 13:14:33 <SvenKieske> kevko: there are six unaddressed comments in that changeset, maybe write something. even if you disagree with all of them, just write that down at least? I certainly won't lift a -1 from a patchset when I see no communication :) 13:14:39 <kevko> SvenKieske: ack 13:14:53 <mnasiadka> Ok, from Kolla RP+1 patches I see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla/+/915440 - bbezak, frickler - should we try to prioritise reviews of that please? 13:14:57 <kevko> SvenKieske: i will ..but now working on something better ..but ack 13:15:19 <mnasiadka> oh boy, kolla-ansible RP+1 list is huge 13:15:19 <SvenKieske> that last thing goes to all patch authors btw, I often see comments just..ignored? at least write that I'm wrong or whatever :P 13:15:32 <SvenKieske> ;) 13:16:16 <kevko> SvenKieske: ack 13:16:18 <SvenKieske> or not just me, I also see that for other comments as well 13:17:43 <SvenKieske> I mean that's maybe 1-5% of comments, I guess it happens to everyone :) no big deal, most of the time. 13:19:28 <mnasiadka> I would very much like https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/913908 to go forward, but I think we've been merging patches to this important functionality without any CI coverage 13:19:43 <mnasiadka> Shouldn't there be some mock OIDC server code we could use in a CI job? 13:20:47 <SvenKieske> I can only support that, but my - albeit short - search didn't reveal anything in that regard, now that I'm thinking about it we _might_ have something in our downstream CI 13:21:28 <SvenKieske> and as we also use zuul maybe that could be adapted somehow 13:21:51 <mnasiadka> Something like this https://github.com/appvia/mock-oidc-user-server ? 13:23:04 <SvenKieske> nah, that's the problem, we deploy keycloak via k3s on the control plane: https://github.com/osism/ansible-collection-services/blob/main/roles/keycloak/tasks/deploy.yml 13:23:09 <kevko> keycloak ? 13:23:22 <mnasiadka> well, I don't know if keycloak is small and fast ;) 13:23:29 <SvenKieske> so I think there aren't any tests we can leverage inside kolla from our side, at least not if you don't want to deploy k3s ;) 13:24:08 <SvenKieske> that mock server has no commits since 3 years ago :-/ 13:24:19 <mnasiadka> maybe it's feature complete ;) 13:24:31 <SvenKieske> could be :) 13:24:35 <mnasiadka> anyway, if there's a volunteer that wants to have a look into that - I'm happy to help :) 13:25:02 <SvenKieske> that's 4 month old: https://github.com/oauth2-proxy/mockoidc 13:25:20 <SvenKieske> but only a go package :( 13:26:01 <kevko> hmm, if we have proxies and caches and registries in opendev/zuul ...can we have also some permanent deployment of keycloak ? 13:26:02 <SvenKieske> if I ever finish wrangling with ovn-exporter libs I can take a look, but that will be probably not this summer, as vacation time draws near 13:27:14 <SvenKieske> at least it's basically greenfield testing, so I don't need to fit it in with existing other tests I guess..but if anybody has more time, don't wait for me 13:28:48 <mnasiadka> ok, let's move on 13:29:00 <opendevreview> Matúš Jenča proposed openstack/kolla-ansible master: Add support for RabbitMQ internode tls https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/921381 13:29:01 <SvenKieske> back to the original topic: I still think we should accept bugfixes for not tested code, it naturally will have the most need for bugfixes ;) 13:29:33 <mnasiadka> well, I'm just worried the bugfix for some people will cause issues for other people :) 13:29:44 <mnasiadka> so we'll need another bugfix 13:30:12 <frickler> but that how community support works, isn't it? 13:30:21 <frickler> +'s 13:30:24 <mnasiadka> in theory yes ;) 13:30:53 <kevko> yeah, and it's master ... bugs expected .. 13:31:07 <mnasiadka> well, then we backport the fix :) 13:31:17 <kevko> exactly 13:31:25 <mnasiadka> anyway - if there are cores more knowledgeable in haproxy area - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/913908 13:31:45 <mnasiadka> but I have no clue how haproxy would even start with bad configuration right now :) 13:32:13 <SvenKieske> I _think_ it rejects bad config, but I can test that part I guess. 13:32:41 <mnasiadka> #topic Additional agenda (from whiteboard) 13:32:51 <mnasiadka> (SvenKieske: please review patch for broken keystone federation backend https://bugs.launchpad.net/kolla-ansible/+bug/2058656 13:32:51 <mnasiadka> trivial patch at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/913908 needs Cores <--still needs input 13:32:51 <mnasiadka> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/921381/comment/56b11f74_f98925e8/ (rmq startuptime high, reason found, please share your opinion) 13:32:59 <mnasiadka> ok, so the patch has been discussed 13:33:32 <mnasiadka> I think the rmq startuptime with inter node TLS has also been discussed 13:33:34 <mnasiadka> right SvenKieske ? 13:33:50 <kevko> i will check 13:34:02 <SvenKieske> yes 13:34:11 <SvenKieske> sorry, I need to clean that up on the whiteboard :) 13:34:17 <bbezak> very trivial for second core - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla/+/922593 13:34:19 <bbezak> pls 13:35:48 <SvenKieske> bbezak: mhm, why not backport that docs change? if people read old docs they end up at the wrong bugtracker? 13:36:08 <SvenKieske> and google most of the time spits out old doc links :( 13:36:45 <mnasiadka> bbezak: why is that not gating? :D 13:36:55 <mnasiadka> oh, it started now 13:36:57 <mnasiadka> phew 13:37:10 <bbezak> :) 13:37:22 <mnasiadka> (r-krcek): [26th June] anything more needed? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/914997 13:38:06 <SvenKieske> time for the review I guess, it's a large patch ;) 13:38:32 <r-krcek> Ok, thanks for the info. 13:38:45 <mnasiadka> I replied - the patch is LGTM, but we need the improvement numbers in the commit message 13:39:37 <SvenKieske> yes, it would actually be a shame to sweep the rather good analysis under the rug of a gerrit comment :) 13:39:57 <mnasiadka> (jovial): [26th June] Podman support patches (please review) 13:39:57 <mnasiadka> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/910016 13:39:57 <mnasiadka> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/910501 13:39:57 <mnasiadka> Could I possibly get an RP+1. Hoping to land these soon, so podman support can be added to Kayobe. 13:40:02 <mnasiadka> I reviewed the first one 13:40:40 <mnasiadka> the second one seems needs some reno love and resolving the comment ;) 13:40:50 <mnasiadka> jovial: can you have a look? 13:41:07 <mnasiadka> next one 13:41:08 <jovial> Yeah, have just seen that comment from Sven. Seems reasonable, I will update the patch. 13:41:11 <mnasiadka> (jovial): [26th June] Additional node exporter targets (please review) 13:41:11 <mnasiadka> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/915975 13:42:41 <mnasiadka> and jovial - please resolve the comments when you adapt code to fix them :) 13:42:45 <mnasiadka> reviewed 13:42:51 <mnasiadka> needs second core outside of SHPC 13:43:00 <mnasiadka> last one 13:43:02 <mnasiadka> (mhiner): Please review: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/836941 13:43:19 <jovial> Thanks - good point. I was never sure if I should be resolving the comments or if the person who made the comment should resolve them if they are happy with the change 13:43:36 <mnasiadka> let's assume they will reply on your resolution if they are not fine 13:43:37 <mnasiadka> :) 13:43:56 <mnasiadka> mhiner: can you make zuul happy before I start reviewing? :) 13:44:48 <mnasiadka> #topic Open discussion 13:44:54 <mnasiadka> Time for everything else 13:44:59 <SvenKieske> yes, I usually reply on every reply I get. you can ping me here if I did miss something. Sometimes it just takes 1-3 days, due to the amount of reviews. 13:46:39 <opendevreview> Martin Hiner proposed openstack/kolla-ansible master: Add container engine migration scenario https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/836941 13:46:55 <mnasiadka> Anybody anything? 13:47:15 <SvenKieske> nope :) 13:47:43 <mnasiadka> then let's finish :) 13:47:46 <mnasiadka> Thanks for coming 13:47:48 <mnasiadka> #endmeeting