09:01:29 <flwang1> #startmeeting magnum
09:01:30 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr 22 09:01:29 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is flwang1. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
09:01:31 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
09:01:33 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'magnum'
09:01:40 <flwang1> #topic roll call
09:01:40 <cosmicsound> hi
09:01:46 <strigazi> o/
09:02:34 <strigazi> ttsiouts: brtknr: ping
09:02:40 <flwang1> o/
09:02:40 <brtknr> o/
09:02:56 <brtknr> cosmicsound: ?
09:02:56 <flwang1> thanks for joining, guys
09:03:26 <flwang1> let's go through today's agenda
09:03:35 <flwang1> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/magnum-weekly-meeting
09:03:45 <flwang1> #topic CI
09:03:48 <flwang1> brtknr: ^
09:03:57 <flwang1> anything we need to discuss about CI?
09:04:02 <strigazi> yes
09:04:10 <strigazi> there are four patches
09:04:17 <strigazi> maybe help with some context
09:04:55 <strigazi> are they ready for input from non zuul people?
09:04:56 <brtknr> 5 patches, including the one in devstack: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:magnum-tempest-plugin-tests-api+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
09:05:07 <brtknr> yep its all ready
09:05:14 <brtknr> as of this morning :)
09:05:20 <flwang1> strigazi: will those patches can run our tempest in CI?
09:05:23 <strigazi> more ci
09:05:32 <ttsiouts> o/
09:05:40 <ttsiouts> sorry for being late
09:05:44 <strigazi> brtknr: is there an order?
09:06:21 <flwang1> based on my understanding, we still need the nested virt to run magnum tempest to deploy a k8s cluster
09:06:43 <brtknr> strigazi: there is order based on depends-on
09:07:10 <strigazi> i'll figure it out
09:07:25 <dioguerra> o/
09:07:37 <flwang1> brtknr: strigazi: please correct me if i'm wrong
09:07:45 <brtknr> flwang1: this is the function-api test only, we can worry about functional-k8s test later
09:08:01 <flwang1> not really
09:08:22 <brtknr> although functional-k8s works for me locally
09:08:26 <strigazi> flwang1: i don't epxect the CI to work for spinning clusters. I'm happy to take the patches to conform with zuul
09:08:42 <flwang1> strigazi: that's my question actually
09:08:49 <flwang1> i don't think it could work
09:09:25 <flwang1> though it may be able to cover some very simple api test
09:09:35 <strigazi> but in any case, as brtknr mentioned in storyboard, we need this for zuul
09:10:09 <flwang1> strigazi: agree, good to have
09:10:44 <strigazi> I'm a bit lost with them but I'll figure it out
09:11:12 <strigazi> I'm covered for this topic, thx brtknr
09:11:57 <flwang1> #topic Scrape internal kubernetes components - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/721284/
09:12:06 <flwang1> anything we need to discuss for this one?
09:12:50 <dioguerra> There are this 3 patches id like to merge before i move with the rest
09:13:18 <dioguerra> as they will conflict.
09:14:04 <flwang1> dioguerra: is there any dep between there?
09:14:28 <flwang1> do you have a recommendation about the review order?
09:15:28 <dioguerra> Not dependency but they interact in the same file.
09:15:57 <brtknr> strigazi: i have made a list of dependencies in the meeting notes
09:16:06 <brtknr> for the ci
09:16:16 <flwang1> brtknr: thanks, that's helpful
09:16:31 <dioguerra> order can be anyone i guess. not one specific but leave https://review.opendev.org/#/c/721592/ for last
09:16:57 <dioguerra> and this one first https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720196/
09:17:06 <ttsiouts> dioguerra: just rebase the changes on top of each other
09:17:36 <ttsiouts> to give clear indication to the reviewers as to what has to be reviewed in what order
09:17:53 <ttsiouts> this way you won't have conflicts between your changes
09:18:01 <dioguerra> ok
09:18:13 <flwang1> ok, except those 3 patches related to prometheus , there are not much on the agenda
09:18:29 <flwang1> brtknr: strigazi: anything else you want you discuss?
09:18:43 <strigazi> git review -x <six digts from url> # with this you can cherry-pick
09:18:56 <strigazi> and stack the patches
09:19:11 <flwang1> we're on RC1, we need to have a general idea about the features/fixes we want for U cycle
09:19:35 <strigazi> flwang1: let's discuss override-lables
09:19:48 <strigazi> *labels
09:21:15 <strigazi> let's discuss U after?
09:21:37 <strigazi> flwang1: ^^
09:22:14 <flwang1> sure
09:23:24 <strigazi> brtknr: ttsiouts: is the PoC the final proposal? Shall we agree and move one with it?
09:24:21 <brtknr> i am happy with the PoC personally!
09:24:26 <ttsiouts> strigazi: I have no problem if we all agree it could be it
09:24:41 <ttsiouts> strigazi: what do you think?
09:24:56 <brtknr> I am happy to hear reasons it could present problems later
09:24:59 <flwang1> can you please help me understand the extra overriden_labels here?
09:25:24 <brtknr> flwang1: have you played around with the PoC patches yet?
09:25:31 <strigazi> I'm ok with PoC, the sooner we have it merged the better.
09:25:32 <flwang1> no
09:25:55 <brtknr> flwang1: it may make sense when you try it, it didnt make intuitive sense to me either
09:25:56 <ttsiouts> flwang1: the overridden_labels is just a field that is generated on cluster/nodegroup show
09:26:35 <ttsiouts> flwang1: it contains the diff between the cluster and cluster_template labels or nodegroup and cluster labels
09:27:05 <flwang1> ttsiouts: ok, then that's the answer for my question in comments
09:27:18 <ttsiouts> flwang1: yes
09:27:57 <ttsiouts> I proposed to PoC because this way we don't have to change the schema
09:28:14 <flwang1> i'm OK with it
09:28:42 <flwang1> my question for you guys is, are we going to get it in U?
09:29:03 <strigazi> as we want
09:29:11 <strigazi> +1 from me
09:29:15 <brtknr> should we hold back the release until it merges?
09:29:33 <brtknr> ttsiouts: how long do you think it will take you polish it off?
09:29:42 <flwang1> brtknr: we don't have to hold back the rc1 actually
09:30:25 <strigazi> +1 ^^
09:30:48 <flwang1> i'm ok to get it in U, my only requirement is  pls updating the api ref
09:30:54 <ttsiouts> brtknr: I can quickly fix some things by tomorrow and have it ready by Friday
09:31:21 <ttsiouts> brtknr: I mean for proper review
09:31:21 <strigazi> maybe do the spec first?
09:31:37 <ttsiouts> strigazi: oh yes. forgot about the spec
09:31:37 <strigazi> or in parallel
09:32:06 <ttsiouts> I could start from the spec maybe to agree on the details. is that ok?
09:32:17 <strigazi> +2
09:32:21 <flwang1> +1
09:32:24 <brtknr> sure
09:32:27 <ttsiouts> great!
09:32:31 <strigazi> Just to have it written
09:32:47 <strigazi> and not look at code documentation :)
09:32:55 <ttsiouts> thank you guys for your time!
09:33:22 <brtknr> thank you!
09:33:43 <brtknr> i have 1 more topic for discussion, helm v3
09:35:17 <flwang1> brtknr: pls continue
09:35:54 <brtknr> do you think the best thing is to have a new namespace for helmv3?
09:36:00 <strigazi> yes
09:36:16 <brtknr> ok
09:36:27 <brtknr> i will try and update the patch today
09:36:45 <strigazi> this was it?
09:37:48 <brtknr> have you guys had a chance to test it yet by any chance?
09:38:20 <strigazi> no me
09:38:27 <flwang1> your v3 patch? not yet
09:38:44 <strigazi> is it ready for testing?
09:38:52 <brtknr> the other option i was thinking was to rename tiller namespace to HELM_NAMESPACE defaulting to magnum-helm
09:39:15 <strigazi> let's not do renames :) news things are better :(
09:39:34 <flwang1> +1 for new namespace
09:39:44 <brtknr> ok
09:39:52 <brtknr> do we want it to be configurable via a label too?
09:40:24 <strigazi> both work for me
09:40:40 <brtknr> ok
09:40:54 <brtknr> that gives me enough to get going
09:41:13 <brtknr> yes the PS works for helmv3, just not polished yet
09:41:20 <brtknr> so fine for testing
09:41:39 <flwang1> let's move on?
09:42:18 <strigazi> +1
09:43:00 <flwang1> strigazi: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718296/ docker storage for FC , are you OK without the support of devicemapper for FC?
09:43:09 <strigazi> +1
09:43:39 <flwang1> and I can propose another patch to add a separate release note and warning in logs for the deprecation of devicemapper
09:43:49 <flwang1> then we can change the default value in V cycle
09:44:01 <brtknr> +2
09:44:17 <flwang1> thank you
09:44:28 <brtknr> when should we have a virtual PTG for V cycle?
09:44:42 <strigazi> s/when// ?
09:44:54 <flwang1> when for what? a following patch?
09:44:59 <flwang1> i will do it tomorrow
09:45:13 <brtknr> should we have a virtual PTG for V cycle?
09:45:26 <flwang1> sure
09:45:43 <strigazi> I don't think we need to have a long one
09:45:56 <flwang1> i think 2hours max
09:46:12 <strigazi> Do we expect anyone that is not here now to attend?
09:46:26 <flwang1> hmm, yes
09:46:37 <strigazi> we do? who?
09:46:46 <flwang1> i'd like to invite all exisitng adopters
09:47:00 <brtknr> Perhaps we should announce it on ML
09:47:05 <flwang1> we will
09:47:08 <strigazi> but will they join? :)
09:47:14 <brtknr> we'll find out
09:47:16 <flwang1> let's try
09:47:34 <flwang1> let's try 6 May?
09:47:35 <brtknr> we have a lot of shadow users
09:47:47 <flwang1> after 2 weeks
09:47:55 <flwang1> UTC9:00- 11:00AM?
09:47:57 <brtknr> sounds good
09:48:19 <strigazi> I don't want to be too negative, let's do it
09:49:31 <flwang1> strigazi: the worst case is they won't join, that's ok
09:49:58 <flwang1> strigazi: anything you want to talk about the the RC?
09:50:33 <strigazi> flwang1: actually no, we can move with rc1 and add what we *need* and want to add
09:50:41 <brtknr> i havent tested the master branch recently, hopefully nothing is broken
09:50:45 <flwang1> cool
09:51:29 <flwang1> for https://review.opendev.org/#/c/714021/ the dashboard 2.0.0,  if there is no GA, until we have to GA, are you guys happy with a rc version now? e.g. v2.0.0-rc7?
09:51:40 <strigazi> +1
09:51:54 <strigazi> is it on by default?
09:52:02 <flwang1> yes
09:52:06 <flwang1> IIRC
09:52:08 <strigazi> but we can disable with the label
09:52:12 <flwang1> sure
09:52:16 <strigazi> fine for me, for gor it
09:52:21 <strigazi> fine for me, go for it
09:52:44 <flwang1> we can easily update the version as long as it GA later, not a big deal TBH
09:52:47 <flwang1> ok, cool
09:52:53 <flwang1> i will update the patch
09:53:01 <strigazi> Last thing from me, when you are done
09:53:08 <flwang1> i'm good
09:54:37 <strigazi> recently I abandoned all patches openstack/magnum (not updated for 30d) and brtknr abandoned some patches in openstack/python-magnumclient when I mentioned it.
09:55:19 <strigazi> I'll do the same with all tasks in storyboard if there is not udpate in the last 30d if you agree
09:55:38 <flwang1> strigazi: i'm ok with that
09:55:53 <brtknr> i think 30d might be too short, maybe 2m?
09:55:58 <brtknr> 60d
09:56:14 <strigazi> I'll do it right now.
09:56:46 <strigazi> I prefer 30d, I don't think 3 people have the capacity to review all that properly.
09:57:10 <strigazi> We are not vetoing against anything
09:57:11 <flwang1> i generally only review the code patches :)
09:57:21 <brtknr> mark them as invalid?
09:57:54 <strigazi> if there is anything iportant, people can speak up. Maybe flwang1 we'll manage to review storyboard as well if the backlog is small
09:58:28 <brtknr> strigazi: what will we set the status to ?
09:58:31 <brtknr> invalid?
09:58:42 <strigazi> yes. I have a feeling that you will start doing it.
09:58:47 <brtknr> there is no "stale" label lathough it would be useful
09:58:50 <flwang1> strigazi: +1
09:59:07 <brtknr> i wont touch it
09:59:09 <openstackgerrit> Feilong Wang proposed openstack/magnum master: [k8s] Fix no IP address in api_address  https://review.opendev.org/721791
09:59:12 <brtknr> i promise
09:59:47 <strigazi> I will share the code of the client
09:59:50 <flwang1> ok, anything else?
10:00:02 <flwang1> we're running out of time
10:00:14 <strigazi> i'm good
10:00:20 <flwang1> brtknr: ?
10:00:28 <brtknr> nope all good
10:00:34 <flwang1> thank you, guys
10:00:42 <flwang1> #endmeeting