15:00:53 <bswartz> #startmeeting manila
15:00:54 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Feb 16 15:00:53 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is bswartz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:55 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:58 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'manila'
15:01:00 <gouthamr> hello o/
15:01:01 <cknight> Hi
15:01:03 <tommylikehu_> hi
15:01:05 <bswartz> hello alll
15:01:06 <vponomaryov> Hello
15:01:07 <dustins> \o
15:01:11 <markstur> hi
15:01:14 <ganso> hello
15:01:15 <kaisers_> \o
15:01:17 <jprovazn> hi
15:01:19 <bswartz> s/alll/all/
15:01:51 <tbarron> hi
15:02:03 <bswartz> #topic announcements
15:02:28 <bswartz> Due to the critical bug found last week I'm planning an RC2 release
15:02:32 <xyang1> Hi
15:02:40 <bswartz> #link https://launchpad.net/bugs/1664370
15:02:40 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1664370 in Manila "Manila exposes host/pool details to non-admin tenants" [Critical,In progress] - Assigned to Ben Swartzlander (bswartz)
15:03:06 <bswartz> with valeriy's help we have a complete fix for that bug ready
15:03:17 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/433716
15:03:48 <bswartz> we considered an decided against treating this as a security bug
15:04:00 <toabctl> hi
15:04:13 <bswartz> while private information is leaking, no exploit is possible, and it's been this way for a long time
15:04:24 <gouthamr> bswartz: two questions 1) what about the manila-ui fix? 2) will a backport be proposed to stable/newton?
15:04:28 <bswartz> a critical bugfix seemed like the best way to handle it
15:04:32 <vponomaryov> bswartz: so we will b able to backport fix for windows driver too? that was implemented by lpetrut?
15:04:47 <ravichandran> hello
15:04:51 <bswartz> gouthamr: for (2) yes, and I would entertain mitaka as well
15:05:04 <dmellado> o/ hi
15:05:06 <vponomaryov> gouthamr: Manila Ui fix will be just "nice to have"
15:05:15 <bswartz> for (1) it will need to be fixed in master and before the backport can be proposed
15:05:20 <vponomaryov> gouthamr: because we will have field "host" without any value
15:06:00 <bswartz> to answer vponomaryov's question, yes, because an RC2 is needed, we should be able to backport any other high importance or low risk bugfixes from master to ocata
15:06:05 <vponomaryov> bswartz: I do not consider UI part fix valueable enough to have RC2
15:06:16 <bswartz> #link https://launchpad.net/manila/+milestone/ocara-rc2
15:06:38 <ganso> bswartz: ocara?
15:06:41 <bswartz> if there are other bugs we should consider for RC2 please tag them and let me know
15:06:47 <bswartz> SHIT
15:06:53 <vponomaryov> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1662944
15:06:53 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1662944 in Manila "Share Group create - doesn't recognize availability zone" [Undecided,New]
15:06:54 <vponomaryov> ?
15:06:58 * bswartz headdesk
15:07:15 <tbarron> bswartz: can we get the tempest pin update included since you are doing the rc2 anyways?
15:07:25 <ganso> wasn't aware of this OpenStack version called ocara
15:07:42 <vponomaryov> ganso: now you do )
15:07:43 <bswartz> #link https://launchpad.net/manila/+milestone/ocata-rc2
15:07:56 <bswartz> ganso: good catch
15:08:27 <dmellado> +1, tbarron, which pin is manila sync'ed as of that bump?
15:08:28 <tbarron> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428230/
15:08:37 <bswartz> vponomaryov: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1662944 does not have a fix in master and thus can't be considered for backport
15:08:37 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1662944 in Manila "Share Group create - doesn't recognize availability zone" [Undecided,New]
15:08:52 <vponomaryov> bswartz: it is small and I plan to do it
15:09:03 <vponomaryov> bswartz: not implement logic, but not break API
15:09:06 <bswartz> vponomaryov: I'd like to push RC2 this afternoon
15:09:15 <ganso> bswartz: this one only needs +2 to merge https://review.openstack.org/#/c/434562/
15:09:21 <vponomaryov> how many hours from no?
15:09:25 <vponomaryov> s/no/now/
15:09:33 <tbarron> dmellado: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/428230/ close as I could get to what tempest will ship
15:09:40 <dmellado> oh, I see
15:09:45 <dmellado> I'll review thta too tbarron, thanks!
15:09:52 <bswartz> vponomaryov: as long as it takes https://review.openstack.org/#/c/433716 to merge in master
15:10:03 <tbarron> dmellado: it has merged, I just want it included in rc2
15:10:50 * tbarron is stupid, that's the commit on master
15:11:04 <bswartz> I won't workflow anything to ocata until the critical bugfix is complete -- it we discover any issue with the bugfix, then RC2 could be canceled
15:11:24 <tbarron> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/433651 is the ocata backport, not merged
15:11:28 <vponomaryov> bswartz: not postponed? exactly canceled?
15:11:40 <bswartz> tbarron: the answer to your question is about the tempest pin is yes as long as it doesn't break anything
15:12:04 <tbarron> bswartz: it has vponmaryov's blessing :)
15:12:06 <bswartz> vponomaryov: The window for RC2 will close because the final release is next week
15:12:18 <bswartz> so RC2 is sort of now-or-never
15:12:25 <vponomaryov> ok
15:12:42 <bswartz> worst case, all of this stuff gets backported after the ocata release and appears in 4.1.0.0
15:12:56 <tbarron> s/vponmaryov/vponomaryov/
15:13:14 <vponomaryov> tbarron, ^_^
15:13:15 <bswartz> there was one other question above about manila-ui
15:13:29 <bswartz> because manila-ui is a lib, is has no RC2 -- just releases
15:13:32 <vponomaryov> bswartz: we can skip Manila UI backporting
15:13:59 <bswartz> I would be happy to push a release out of the manila-ui stable branch for the benefit of distros
15:14:48 <tbarron> bswartz: thanks, it does make life easier
15:15:21 <bswartz> we can discuss later if the backport for manila-ui is worth doing at all, but assuming it is, it would appear in manila-ui 2.7.1
15:16:04 <bswartz> #agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Meetings
15:16:18 <bswartz> #topic i18n liason needed
15:16:47 <bswartz> ianychoi pointed out last week that Manila doesn't have an official liason for i18n
15:16:53 <bswartz> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons#I18n
15:17:19 <bswartz> If someone would like to volunteer, please sign up on the wiki
15:17:38 <bswartz> liasons are not required to attend i18n meetings (although they're welcome to)
15:17:50 <ianychoi> +1 :)
15:17:53 <bswartz> mostly the job is to be a contact person and to be responsible for fixing manila-specific i18n issues
15:18:33 <bswartz> anyone want to volunteer for this?
15:18:54 <bswartz> I noticed that a little more than half of the projects listed don't have a liason
15:19:26 <tommylikehu_> what's the requirement for this?
15:19:38 <bswartz> tommylikehu_: read the linked wiki
15:20:12 <ianychoi> Yep that's correct. Now I am considering that: I18n team indeed needs liaison people for horizon & horizon plugin projects which are enabled with translation (at least)
15:20:42 <bswartz> as long as the liason role is empty, the responsbilities fall on the PTL, and I'm probably not doing a great job here
15:20:53 <tommylikehu_> bswartz: lol, I am rejected by the first requirement ..
15:21:11 <bswartz> I try to enforce string freezes and such, although I get constant pushback when I do
15:21:27 <gouthamr> i volunteer tommylikehu_ :)
15:21:33 <vponomaryov> ianychoi: why there is requirement to be "core member"?
15:21:36 <bswartz> ianychoi: is being a core reviewer an absolute requirement?
15:22:07 <bswartz> I read the text as SHOULD BE a core reviewer
15:22:25 <ianychoi> tommylikehu_, I talked this requirement from previous PTLs and they said that it would be changed - not a requirement
15:22:27 <bswartz> perhaps if tommylikehu_ want this job he could do it while not a core reviewer
15:22:52 <tommylikehu_> bswartz: Thanks
15:22:58 <ianychoi> IMO "or with the agreement of PTLs" would be fine
15:23:23 <bswartz> I'll agree if tommylikehu_ want to sign up
15:23:35 <bswartz> okay thanks
15:23:48 <bswartz> #topic PTG
15:23:55 <bswartz> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-pike-ptg-topics
15:23:56 <ianychoi> Thanks a lot tommylikehu_ !
15:24:17 <tommylikehu_> ianychoi: np:)
15:24:44 <bswartz> PTG is next week and therefore we will be canceling next week's IRC meeting
15:25:18 <bswartz> The Manila team is meeting Wednesday and Thursday from 9AM-5PM EST (or whenever they let us have the room)
15:25:39 <bswartz> I think in Barcelona we managed to stay later than everyone else
15:25:58 <bswartz> the cleaning staff was surprised to find us still in the meeting room Friday afternoon
15:25:59 <vponomaryov> bswartz: for about 15 minutes
15:26:14 <cknight> bswartz: PTG rooms are available until 6
15:26:22 <vponomaryov> bswartz: not so that "later" as could be
15:26:30 <dustins> And the bars stay open pretty late thereafter...
15:26:45 <bswartz> I'm pretty sure we'll get hungry and decide to end our meetings
15:27:08 <bswartz> The main thing I want to stress is that this is the first PTG ever and I'm not really sure how it will play out
15:27:09 <markstur> dustins may get kicked out of more than one room at closing time, huh?
15:27:20 <bswartz> I'm scheduling topics on the etherpad
15:27:31 <dustins> markstur: All in the name of good design and discussion :)
15:27:48 <bswartz> please add any new proposed topics to the unscheduled section and don't move anything without talking to me about it
15:28:40 <bswartz> for those who won't be able to attend in person, gouthamr plans both a live webex and to make recordings of the sessions
15:29:07 <ganso> gouthamr: thanks
15:29:09 <jprovazn> I revived ameade's user messages feature (a new spec for it is here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/434277/), I see vponomaryov added this to PTH topics, albeit I will not be there I can jump on a videoconf or something if there is interest to discuss this?
15:29:28 <jprovazn> s/PTH/PTG/
15:30:02 <bswartz> jprovazn: you won't be able to attend in person?
15:30:11 <jprovazn> bswartz, nope
15:31:05 <bswartz> user messages are worth discussing, but we have the option to cover it the following week in the IRC meeting as well, if we can't make a video conference work
15:31:39 <bswartz> I'm not sure what the quality of the internet and conferencing equipment will be
15:31:51 <jprovazn> bswartz, both works for me, I guess your schedule for PTG will be tight, but if it turns out there is a slot for this, any chance to let me know in advance?
15:31:59 <jprovazn> (different TZ)
15:32:09 <tbarron> bswartz: also, early in the day if possible
15:32:10 <gouthamr> bswartz: i'm hoping it'd be nice or ganso won't thank me :P
15:32:20 <bswartz> jprovazn: if you can commit to a time, I'll schedule you at that specific time
15:32:36 <bswartz> jprovazn: contact me after the meeting
15:32:41 <ganso> gouthamr: xD
15:32:47 <jprovazn> bswartz, ok, will do later today
15:32:57 <vponomaryov> gouthamr: you can sponsor ganso any time ))
15:33:29 <gouthamr> vponomaryov: haha... someday
15:34:18 <bswartz> IMO the foundation could expand its travel assistance program by squeezing more money out of sponsors
15:35:14 <vponomaryov> bswartz: summit is not "free" anymore, what are you talkign about? )
15:35:15 <bswartz> so have all of the topics in everyone's head already been proposed on the etherpad?
15:35:32 <ravichandran> bswartz: can we push this change to ocata (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/434639/)
15:35:34 <tommylikehu_> vponomaryov: we have to buy the ticket
15:35:51 <vponomaryov> tommylikehu_: it is exactly what I am talkinga bout
15:35:56 <bswartz> vponomaryov: that's true, there will be fewer free passes to the summit, so admissions might generate more revenue
15:36:17 <bswartz> ravichandran: save that for open discussion
15:36:23 <ravichandran> ok
15:36:58 <bswartz> PTG attendees and presenters still get free passes to Boston -- so that could be several hundred free passes still
15:37:26 <vponomaryov> bswartz; PTG is not free too
15:37:33 <bswartz> we'll see if the foundation decides to keep this new structure of split summit/PTG -- I'm sure they will receive plenty of feedback after next week
15:37:40 <vponomaryov> bswartz: sooo, original statement still correct )
15:38:22 <bswartz> vponomaryov: PTG costs only $100 and I'm sure that doesn't even cover the food/snacks
15:38:41 <bswartz> they have sponsors making up the rest of the PTG costs
15:38:59 <vponomaryov> bswartz: sure not covers, but it describes intentions to expand sponsorship )
15:39:19 <bswartz> so I'm not hearing that there are any more topics for the etherpad
15:39:23 <bswartz> how about input on scheduling?
15:39:32 <bswartz> I'm only have halfway done scheduling sessions
15:39:58 <bswartz> is anything on the unscheduled list super interesting to multiple peopel?
15:40:05 <bswartz> people
15:40:23 * bswartz grumbles that autocorrect has made him a bad typer
15:41:02 <dustins> The scenario tests are interesting to me
15:41:13 <gouthamr> dustins: +1 and this one too: manage API requirements (vponomaryov)
15:41:32 <dustins> Also that, good call, gouthamr
15:41:47 <dustins> Telemetry would also be a nice thing to touch upon
15:41:50 <gouthamr> also thinks we need some action items around: "Race Conditions follow up"
15:42:06 <gouthamr> we need more hands on deck to get that completed :)
15:42:07 <bswartz> I wouldn't mind talking about scenario test briefly today, as they've been causing me some problems the last few days
15:43:42 <bswartz> anyways that's all I had on PTG -- I'm going to keep tinkering with the schedule so please talk to me before moving anything -- limit your edits to adding more content to unscheduled and existing topics
15:43:50 <bswartz> #topic open discussion
15:44:05 <bswartz> ravichandran: what is your change about?
15:44:11 <bswartz> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/434639/
15:44:24 <ravichandran> this about hpe driver share group signature change
15:44:34 <ravichandran> to be in sync with driver.py
15:45:03 <ravichandran> we dont support share group but we will pass message in the function
15:45:04 <bswartz> ravichandran: yeah this looks very low risk
15:45:17 <bswartz> let me tag the bug and target it
15:45:19 <markstur> very low risk
15:45:30 <ravichandran> thank you
15:46:00 <bswartz> okay so about scenario tests
15:46:20 <bswartz> I'm running into a number of issues with them
15:46:29 <bswartz> AFAICT they're mostly written by u_glide and ganso
15:46:47 <ganso> bswartz: whaaaa? which issues?
15:46:51 <bswartz> not sure how much of them was written by vponomaryov or anyone else
15:47:12 <vponomaryov> bswartz: originally -> by mkoderer ^_^
15:47:19 <vponomaryov> bswartz; but why does it matter?
15:47:20 <markstur> so thanks go ganso blame to u_glide and mixed feelings to vponomaryov
15:47:23 <bswartz> ganso: issues running them on my system, with bare devstack and tempest
15:47:27 <markstur> s/go/to/
15:47:40 <bswartz> ah yes mkoderer did the pioneering work there
15:47:52 <vponomaryov> who is not blamed yet? ))
15:48:02 <mkoderer> I am not guilty
15:48:02 <vponomaryov> raise hand
15:48:03 <bswartz> anyways one problem I noticed that is they rely on the existence of a pre-configured default share type
15:48:21 <bswartz> that seems silly given that most of our tests create share types as they need them
15:48:30 <ganso> bswartz: yes part of the necessary configuration is in pre_test_hook/post_test_hook
15:48:49 <vponomaryov> bswartz: scenario tests use share type from config if provided one
15:48:56 <ganso> bswartz: also, another part of the configuration, and the reason why scenario tests don't run in my lab is something about neutron... VMs can never mount the share
15:49:07 <bswartz> ganso: why not follow the pattern used elsewhere in the code and create it automatically?
15:49:10 <ganso> bswartz: but totally unrelated with the migration tests I've written
15:49:37 <bswartz> ganso: so the other issue I encounter is with SSH timeouts in the migration scnenario tests
15:49:50 <ganso> bswartz: that's the same problem I have in my lab
15:50:01 <bswartz> ganso: the first 10 or so SSH commands go through fine, but then the 11th one hangs for 5 minutes
15:50:15 <ganso> bswartz: they are not related to migration... the tests mount_one_vm, mount_two_vms suffer from this
15:50:21 <vponomaryov> bswartz: then it means that SSH ool is exceeded
15:50:26 <vponomaryov> s/ool/pool/
15:50:37 <vponomaryov> bswartz: need to close SSH connections properly
15:50:41 <bswartz> vponomaryov: is that a client side or server side pool?
15:50:56 <vponomaryov> bswartz: I am assuming from your description of a problem
15:51:00 <tbarron> and how big *is* it?  how many connections are we doing?
15:51:14 <bswartz> vponomaryov: if we're not closing SSH connections after we're doing with them, that sounds like our bug
15:51:22 <bswartz> done* with them
15:51:26 <vponomaryov> bswartz: yes, if so, it is our bug
15:51:46 <bswartz> in any case I'm interested in improving things with scenario tests
15:52:03 <bswartz> we made no progress during ocata on getting 3rd party CIs to run scenario tests
15:52:20 <vponomaryov> bswartz: HNAS ran them, right, ganso?
15:52:21 <bswartz> my opinion is that it might be too hard still to get past some of the rough edges
15:52:23 <ganso> bswartz: how come we didn't? they are running on LVM driver now
15:52:38 <vponomaryov> ganso: it is not 3rd-party
15:52:39 <ganso> vponomaryov: no, they are not currently being run on HNAS, not yet
15:52:48 <vponomaryov> ganso: I mean you tried
15:52:48 <bswartz> my point exactly
15:52:53 <ganso> vponomaryov, bswartz: oh right, 3rd party, sorry
15:53:00 <ganso> vponomaryov: I haven't finished trying
15:53:00 <bswartz> we're closer than we were, but we haven't achieved the goal
15:53:12 <ganso> vponomaryov: I submitted a test patch to continue working on it
15:53:27 <bswartz> I'd like to track down the SSH issue if possible
15:53:46 <bswartz> if it's simply a bug in our SSH logic that would great
15:53:48 <vponomaryov> bswartz: have you filed a bugreport?
15:53:59 <bswartz> if there's a tempest or paramiko issue we should try to file bugs in those projects
15:54:12 <bswartz> vponomaryov: not sure who's bug it is yet
15:54:39 <ganso> vponomaryov: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/429644/
15:54:44 <vponomaryov> bswartz: to have picture of your problem
15:54:47 <bswartz> I was doing tests with manila-test-image late last night and I considered that it might be my bug (in manila-test-image) although it seems unlikely without more testing
15:54:48 <ganso> vponomaryov: this will be necessary for 3rd party
15:55:37 <ganso> vponomaryov: either 0.0.0.0/0 or configurable range
15:55:42 <bswartz> vponomaryov: the reason I haven't filed a bug yet is because I've never personally observed this issue in our gate
15:56:02 <bswartz> so I assume that some configuration exists which eliminates the problem
15:56:18 <bswartz> and I just haven't found it yet
15:56:18 <vponomaryov> bswartz: still, the picture of problem is not available
15:56:24 <bswartz> okay
15:56:27 <bswartz> that won't be hard to obtain
15:56:35 <bswartz> we can take that discussion to the channel
15:56:43 <bswartz> anything else for today's meeting?
15:57:01 <vponomaryov> just reminder to all _> review this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/433716
15:57:12 <vponomaryov> it is RC2 reason
15:57:34 <bswartz> +1000
15:57:41 <bswartz> ty vponomaryov
15:57:54 <bswartz> thanks everyone
15:58:08 <bswartz> I'll see some of you next week in person
15:58:10 <tommylikehu_> thanks
15:58:13 <bswartz> #endmeeting