15:00:19 <bswartz> #startmeeting manila
15:00:20 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Dec 14 15:00:19 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is bswartz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:22 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:24 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'manila'
15:00:29 <gouthamr> o/
15:00:30 <bswartz> hello all
15:00:31 <dustins> \o
15:00:37 <zhongjun> Hi
15:00:44 <Yogi1> Hi
15:00:46 <markstur> hi
15:00:46 <ganso> hello
15:00:46 <xyang1> Hi
15:01:03 <bswartz> courtesy ping: tbarron toabctl markstur vponomaryov cknight
15:01:29 <bswartz> I know tbarron is traveling for business and can't make today's meeting
15:01:38 <bswartz> #topic announcements
15:01:51 <bswartz> Queens-2 was tagged last week
15:02:11 <bswartz> There were some gate issues but the tags all went out by Friday
15:02:26 <vkmc> o/
15:02:31 <bswartz> also a few important things missed the milestone, but did merge last week
15:03:24 <bswartz> There's not much on the agenda today, but I have a few small things I wanted to bring up before we go over bugs
15:03:41 <bswartz> #topic Rocky and beyond
15:03:52 <bswartz> Not sure if you all have seen this:
15:04:02 <bswartz> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-December/125473.html
15:04:32 <bswartz> It seems likely that OpenStack will be shifting from 6 month cycles to 12 month cycles for releases
15:04:42 <dustins> Whoa
15:04:56 <bswartz> That includes things like PTL terms, and official events like PTGs/Summits
15:05:16 <ganso> holy ****!
15:05:18 <bswartz> it's no official yet (AFAIK), but my guess is that this will happen after they hammer out the details
15:05:31 <clarkb> bswartz: yes it is just a proposal being discussed right now
15:05:33 <vkmc> :o
15:05:56 <gouthamr> needs clarification that this is for coordinated release only
15:06:05 <bswartz> Anyways, if you have opinions, use the ML to post them
15:06:45 <bswartz> gouthamr: well like I said, it affects PTL terms, and official events for the most part
15:07:06 <bswartz> Individual projects could still run themselves on a 6 month release cycle or do something else if they wish
15:07:11 <gouthamr> ttx did say projects would be encouraged to release as often as they want
15:07:27 <jungleboyj> @!
15:07:27 <_pewp_> jungleboyj (;-_-)ノ
15:07:41 <bswartz> as long as they line up with the official coordinated release in some way
15:08:34 <bswartz> Anyways it's something for us to discuss after the decision gets made
15:08:57 <bswartz> I've always dreamed of having faster releases -- this might give us the opportunity to do it
15:09:18 <bswartz> But we'll do what's right for the project
15:09:23 <ganso> bswartz: faster than 6 months?
15:09:32 <zhongjun> As least, it looks like something will be changed
15:10:27 <ganso> zhongjun: +1 some change is needed
15:10:33 <bswartz> ganso: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-sigs/2017-November/000166.html
15:11:07 <jungleboyj> I think something is going to change.  Will be interesting to see what?
15:11:27 <bswartz> one other thing I wanted to covery quickly
15:11:37 <bswartz> #topic meetings during the holiday season
15:12:02 <bswartz> our next scheduled meeting is Dec 21
15:12:22 <bswartz> I'll be working that day, but I'm not sure how many of you will be
15:12:49 <bswartz> The following meeting is Dec 28, and I'll be on PTO that week, but I could hold the meeting if there was enough demand
15:13:10 <dustins> I know I will be here on the 21st, but I won't be in another Manila meeting until 11 Jan
15:13:39 <bswartz> The challenge is that feature freeze is coming fast, and we don't want to miss too many chances to discuss issues with important new features
15:13:46 <bswartz> #link https://releases.openstack.org/queens/schedule.html
15:14:25 <bswartz> So the weeks of R-10, R-9, and R-8 are all likely to conflict with someone's holidays
15:14:35 <bswartz> And R-7 is feature proposal freeze
15:15:10 <bswartz> Should we plan on canceling any meetings? If so which?
15:16:01 * bswartz notes the silence in the room
15:16:30 <markstur> at least cancel Dec 28 I'd think
15:16:31 <bswartz> Okay well I'd probably like to cancel the Dec 28 one just because I won't be in the office that week
15:16:47 <bswartz> the other 2 -- we'll see if any topic get proposed
15:16:56 <dustins> Yeah, can the 28th and hold the one January 4th
15:17:26 <bswartz> if there are no topics or we can't achieve quorum, the meetings will probably be very short or not happen at all (if I cancel them I'll post it on the wiki + ML)
15:17:52 <bswartz> alright let's move one to bugs
15:17:58 <bswartz> we didn't get time to work through the list last week
15:18:08 <bswartz> #topic Let's go over new bugs
15:18:17 <bswartz> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-bug-triage-pad
15:18:22 <bswartz> dustins: what do you have for us this week?
15:19:04 <dustins> I have the few that we had from last week plus one more
15:19:24 <dustins> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/manila-bug-triage-pad
15:20:05 <dustins> https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1737713
15:20:07 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1737713 in Manila "create cephfs share failed" [Undecided,New]
15:20:07 <dustins> Tjat
15:20:14 * dustins realigns fingers
15:20:45 <dustins> This one is new this week, and has to do with creating a CephFS share failing
15:21:16 <dustins> Ramana is out on PTO for the rest of the week, so vkmc, tbarron, and I will look into this
15:21:30 <bswartz> should we assume the bug is in the driver?
15:21:36 <bswartz> or is there any reason to doubt that?
15:22:34 <gouthamr> ERROR oslo_messaging.rpc.server Error: (13, "error in mkdir 'volumes': error code 13")
15:22:38 <dustins> I'm not sure, it could be a permissions/capabilities issue with the underlying ceph service, but we'll look into it
15:22:42 <gouthamr> looks like a misconfigured backend
15:22:54 <vkmc> yeah, cephfs native gate is passing
15:22:55 <dustins> It looks like it has something to do with the backend, but we'll look into it
15:23:12 <vkmc> so I would not assume it's a bug in the driver
15:23:13 <vkmc> rather a misconfig
15:23:35 <dustins> Yeah, that's what my spidey-sense is saying as well
15:23:40 <vkmc> I'll try to reproduce it
15:23:51 <dustins> vkmc: I'll assign it to you!
15:24:05 <vkmc> dustins, sure, thanks
15:24:08 <bswartz> dustins: if it's a user error, please just post what the user did wrong in the bug, so that people searching can find the same solution
15:24:19 <dustins> Of course!
15:25:10 <bswartz> I can't tell you how many of my Linux issues lead me from google to launchpad to an actual solution to my problem
15:25:18 <ttx> bswartz: I wouldn't say it's likely, given the reception to the proposal :)
15:25:58 <bswartz> ttx: oh! we'll keep an eye on it then. I was just raising awareness
15:26:10 <bswartz> dustins: what's next?
15:26:12 <dustins> So it sounds like that one's taken care of for now, thanks, vkmc!
15:26:18 <dustins> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1707005
15:26:20 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1707005 in Manila " Enable IPv6 in manila(network plugins and drivers)" [Undecided,New]
15:26:22 <ttx> I mean, I'm definitely interested in whether you think it would be helping or making things worse.
15:26:39 <dustins> This one's just an autogenerated docs bug
15:27:01 <dustins> Can be closed if we have IPv6 configuration docs for Manila
15:27:10 <zhongjun> I added ipv6 in api-ref
15:27:31 <bswartz> dustins: the core of manila will handle IPv6 automatically -- it's really a driver config issue
15:27:35 <zhongjun> But we should review it in our doc
15:27:50 <bswartz> administrators need to know how to enable ipv6 on their specific backends
15:28:00 <gouthamr> zhongjun: do we have the config opt changes documented? and perhaps share network admin/user documentation
15:28:01 <bswartz> oh and I suppose there's the network plugin issue
15:28:17 <bswartz> network plugins are part of the core and any ipv6 options on them need docs
15:28:19 <zhongjun> dustins: I will recheck it
15:28:28 <bswartz> zhongjun: ty
15:28:32 <dustins> zhongjun: Sounds good, I'll assign you to the bug!
15:28:36 <gouthamr> zhongjun: +1 thanks
15:28:46 <bswartz> ttx: I'll share my opinion on the ML
15:29:21 <zhongjun> I added something about ipv6 in doc. But I am not sure it is finished
15:29:45 <dustins> Alright, two more for today
15:29:53 <dustins> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1705540
15:29:54 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1705540 in Manila " Add quotas per share type" [Undecided,New]
15:30:00 <dustins> Another simple docs check
15:30:09 <dustins> This one for Share Type Quotas
15:31:22 <dustins> We just need to double check that we have docs for this
15:31:24 <gouthamr> this one needs admin docs.. can we tag it and look for a volunteer?
15:31:43 <bswartz> gouthamr: are you sure the docs don't exist? I'm looking now
15:32:22 <gouthamr> bswartz: yep, i don't see it in the admin guide..
15:32:33 <bswartz> okay, so this bug is legit
15:32:49 <dustins> Any volunteers?
15:33:29 <bswartz> fwiw, bugs like this don't really need attention until after the 3rd milestone, so someone could volunteer and tackle it then
15:34:02 <zhongjun> dustins: I will try to find a volunteer, if not, I’ll do it
15:34:07 <dustins> bswartz: I'll keep that in mind
15:34:13 <dustins> zhongjun: Awesome, thanks!
15:34:27 <gouthamr> this is the link https://docs.openstack.org/manila/latest/admin/shared-file-systems-quotas.html , but i can't seem to find it in the index :|
15:35:01 <dustins> gouthamr: Yeah, I couldn't find it in the index, and honestly the docs search sucks
15:35:59 <gouthamr> Found it, it's under Share Management as a second level topic.. i think that needs fixing
15:36:03 <zhongjun> I remembered someone fixed that, but it looks like there still has something left
15:36:19 <bswartz> dustins: what's next?
15:36:32 <dustins> Last one for today: https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1705533
15:36:34 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1705533 in Manila "manila manage error output does failed to format python string" [Undecided,New]
15:36:37 <dustins> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/manila/+bug/1705533
15:36:51 <zhongjun> leave
15:37:01 * bswartz headdesk
15:37:06 <bswartz> this looks like a really simple bug
15:37:11 <gouthamr> this is a hard one :)
15:37:21 <gouthamr> i think we kept it aside for the bugsmash as a low hanging fruit?
15:37:23 <dustins> Yeah, totally a low hanging fruit
15:37:53 <bswartz> I'm sure someone at netapp will fix this before the release
15:38:02 <dustins> Dang, I forgot to add this to the bugscrub event
15:38:11 <bswartz> gouthamr: can we assign it so there's no confusion?
15:38:16 <gouthamr> yep
15:38:38 <dustins> gouthamr: who should I assign it to? the NetApp group?
15:38:56 <bswartz> dustins: if we can't pick someone specific, then yes
15:39:01 <gouthamr> dustins: i assigned it to myself
15:39:02 <bswartz> gouthamr: did you want to take this personally?
15:39:10 <bswartz> okay cool
15:39:18 <bswartz> does that do it for the bugs?
15:39:29 <dustins> For today, yeah!
15:39:35 <bswartz> #topic open discussion
15:39:41 <bswartz> anything else for today?
15:39:43 <gouthamr> i got one
15:39:51 <gouthamr> finding link
15:39:52 <dustins> I think next week I'll circle back around on the bugs that we've covered to check in
15:40:05 <dustins> Plus some new ones, I reckon
15:40:29 <gouthamr> #link https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg113994.html
15:40:39 <gouthamr> ^ quick google search link, sorry about that
15:40:47 <bswartz> oh yes
15:40:51 <gouthamr> vkmc sent this note out a couple of days ago
15:41:28 <gouthamr> should we wait for responses?
15:41:49 <bswartz> I say we press forward
15:42:08 <gouthamr> okay..
15:42:09 <vkmc> yes, http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-December/125471.html
15:42:12 <bswartz> we'll find out who's paying attention and who's not
15:42:24 <gouthamr> vkmc: ah, the real link :)
15:42:43 <vkmc> and this is the patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512300/
15:43:35 <vkmc> reading your last comment gouthamr
15:43:35 <zhongjun> gouthamr:It would be better to wait for responses, at least two or more.
15:43:42 <vkmc> seems like a bug
15:43:45 <bswartz> I haven't tested that personally yet, but I plan to do it today
15:44:03 <gouthamr> kaisers: if you're around... i know you guys don't use devstack gate, would like your input on the ML if you could get this to work easily
15:45:08 <gouthamr> vkmc: we discussed the possibility of that bug briefly at the Atlanta PTG and we concluded that we would rip out those tests when they become an issue
15:45:24 <bswartz> long live sos-ci!
15:45:39 <gouthamr> this is the case where manila-tempest-plugin has tests that tests the maximum microversion reported by manila
15:46:16 <gouthamr> we concluded in ATL that we don't need those tests
15:46:44 <bswartz> gouthamr: hold on
15:46:46 <gouthamr> * test the maximum microversion reported by manila against the configured maximum microversion
15:47:13 <bswartz> the decision that we didn't need them rested on the assumption that the tests would remain in-tree
15:47:41 <bswartz> if you take the tests out of the tree like we're doing, then suddenly those tests have more value
15:47:50 <gouthamr> This is the configuration option we fiddle with every time we bump the microversion on the server side: https://github.com/openstack/manila-tempest-plugin/blob/master/manila_tempest_tests/config.py#L33
15:48:35 <gouthamr> bswartz: what's the point of testing that the server reports a particular microversion as the maximum?
15:48:50 <gouthamr> bswartz: https://github.com/openstack/manila-tempest-plugin/blob/master/manila_tempest_tests/tests/api/test_microversions.py
15:49:26 <bswartz> I was thinking about testing the case where the cloud is newer than the tempest version
15:49:53 <bswartz> and being able to detect if anything changed since the latest version tempest knew about
15:50:03 <bswartz> we probably need to have this discussion over again, but we don't need to do it now
15:50:04 <gouthamr> bswartz: so specific APIs and their responses at the configured version should be tested..
15:50:32 <bswartz> it's not a use case for gate testing -- it's something a tempest developer (QA engineer) might be interested in
15:50:46 <bswartz> let's cover that issue offline
15:50:49 <bswartz> anything else for today?
15:51:11 <gouthamr> bswartz: we can probably gate on the minimum, but if we continue having this, someone bumping up the microversion on the server will have to first submit a patch to manila-tempest-plugin and make their manila patch depend on this change
15:51:40 <gouthamr> nope, looks like zhongjun recommends holding off until next week?
15:52:22 <bswartz> zhongjun: you need more time to update your CI?
15:52:58 <zhongjun> To make sure it is work on our CI
15:53:22 <bswartz> okay that's fine with me
15:53:22 <zhongjun> We never checked it
15:53:45 <bswartz> let's plan on merging this next week come hell or high water though
15:54:04 <gouthamr> "tempest"
15:54:09 <gouthamr> :)
15:54:25 <zhongjun> Thanks
15:54:36 <bswartz> okay that's it for today
15:54:42 <vkmc> +1 next week
15:54:50 <bswartz> thanks everyone for your reviews last week to get the milestone done
15:54:58 <bswartz> #endmeeting