18:16:15 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:16:16 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Dec 15 18:16:15 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:16:18 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:16:20 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:16:30 <SumitNaiksatam> back to our favorite topic
18:16:38 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Remove expunge_all calls
18:16:43 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/399772/
18:16:55 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: hi
18:17:03 <songole> hi
18:17:09 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: any chance that you can summarize the findings at your end?
18:17:44 <songole> SumitNaiksatam: I have asked Ashutosh to join.
18:17:55 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: ah great
18:18:02 <songole> Don't see him online though
18:18:11 <songole> Too late for them in India
18:18:25 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: completely understandable
18:18:44 <SumitNaiksatam> based on his last email it seemed that he suspected that cascaded delete was not working as expected?
18:18:58 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: you have thoughts on that?
18:19:17 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: I wasn’t sure.
18:19:18 <tbachman> He said something about avoiding things, but not fixing them
18:19:18 <tbachman> the gate passes tho
18:19:45 <tbachman> so, I wasn’t sure what else he was looking into
18:21:07 <songole> Are the tests passing with the fix he made?
18:21:20 <tbachman> the gate passes. No exceptions in the logs either
18:21:45 <songole> ok. thought he was seeing exceptions elsewhere
18:21:49 <tbachman> oh
18:21:57 <tbachman> I can go back and look at the latest
18:22:02 <tbachman> I just looked at the gate that was failing
18:22:50 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: yeah the tests were passing
18:23:37 <SumitNaiksatam> i am taking a look at the patch again
18:24:00 <tbachman> If I read it correctly, he thought that a cascade was causing something to be deleted, so when it later was going to be deleted explicitly, it failed because it was already gone
18:24:17 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: ah okay
18:24:26 <SumitNaiksatam> so now he is catching that exception
18:24:29 <tbachman> right
18:24:46 <SumitNaiksatam> i guess we are good then :-)
18:24:49 <tbachman> but that was just from looking briefly at the change and his email
18:24:50 <tbachman> lol
18:24:56 <SumitNaiksatam> right
18:25:04 <tbachman> yeah — it sounded like he felt there was more onion to peel.
18:25:05 <SumitNaiksatam> i actually had not seen his most recent patch
18:25:06 <SumitNaiksatam> just saw it
18:25:14 <SumitNaiksatam> *patch set
18:25:19 <tbachman> (from the last email he sent)
18:25:23 <tbachman> maybe that’s changed
18:25:24 <tbachman> dunno
18:25:26 <songole> SumitNaiksatam: I was caught up with other things. didn't get a chance to sync up with him.
18:25:28 <SumitNaiksatam> if this is all that is needed this looks good to me
18:25:34 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: np
18:25:58 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: how about we recheck this a few times today
18:26:01 <tbachman> I think the question is: if this is it, does this need to go hand-in-hand with the patch that removes the expunge?
18:26:04 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: sounds good
18:26:09 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i will keep a watch and do it
18:26:11 <tbachman> (i.e. two separate patches, or one)
18:26:17 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thanks!
18:26:20 <tbachman> I can help there too
18:26:53 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i am fine either ways, since its the removal of expunge calls that reveals this, i am fine if the fix goes in the same patch
18:27:03 <tbachman> k
18:27:25 <tbachman> If this passes functional testing, then we can create the other patch that removes all of the expunge infrastructure
18:27:30 <SumitNaiksatam> i think some explanation can be added as to how expunge_all was masking the issue
18:27:36 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: sure
18:27:36 <tbachman> right
18:28:26 <tbachman> songole: thanks to you and your team for digging in to this
18:28:41 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: in this patch we can put a comment in the place where we have commented out the calls to expunge_all as to why we are doing that and what is the effect of just having the yield in there (basically that its a no-op)
18:28:49 <tbachman> I’m not quite as familiar with this code, so it’s appreciated
18:28:49 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: thanks indeed
18:28:58 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: sounds good
18:29:07 <songole> tbachman: SumitNaiksatam: I will pass it on...
18:29:15 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: of course, BIG thanks to you for preservering with this investigation
18:29:22 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: np!
18:29:44 <tbachman> I just kicked things off :-)
18:30:04 <tbachman> (sound of ball dropping, and OneConvergence team picking it up)
18:30:14 <tbachman> lol
18:30:15 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol
18:30:25 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: you did way more than that
18:30:31 <SumitNaiksatam> but this was a tough one
18:30:35 <songole> SumitNaiksatam: after this fix, can we remove the monkey patch in lb?
18:31:04 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: you can try, but i dont it gaurantees
18:31:10 <SumitNaiksatam> *dont think it
18:31:22 <songole> tbachman: thanks for all the help
18:31:34 <SumitNaiksatam> since we were earlier discussing that ideally the db objects should be accessed within a transaction
18:31:34 <tbachman> songole: my pleasure — thank you and your team!
18:32:06 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: i would recommend that we drop the lbaas patch and watch how it behaves
18:32:22 <tbachman> one…
18:32:22 <songole> SumitNaiksatam: ok. will do
18:32:23 <SumitNaiksatam> (after we merge this patch)
18:32:24 <tbachman> step....
18:32:25 <tbachman> at...
18:32:27 <tbachman> a…
18:32:34 <SumitNaiksatam> time
18:32:36 <tbachman> lol
18:32:50 <SumitNaiksatam> got the message :-)
18:33:04 <songole> tbachman: slowly
18:33:08 <songole> getting
18:33:09 <songole> it
18:33:09 <tbachman> lol
18:33:10 <songole> :)
18:33:12 <tbachman> :)
18:33:16 <SumitNaiksatam> :-)
18:33:17 <tbachman> songole: nice 1
18:33:35 <tbachman> (sound of 9600 baud modem)
18:33:48 <SumitNaiksatam> so, tbachman will you be adding the comments for the expunge_all call?
18:33:52 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: ack
18:33:53 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol
18:34:04 <tbachman> I’ll add it to his patch
18:34:10 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: right
18:34:10 <tbachman> (since he cherry-picked the expunge)
18:34:46 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: once tbachman adds his comment, perhaps ashutosh can his investigation summary to the commit mesage (why the we catch objectdeleted exception, etc) and then we shoud be good
18:35:06 <songole> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:35:08 <SumitNaiksatam> *can add
18:35:10 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: will have that sometime after this meeting (am currently on VPN, and can’t push gerrits from my VM)
18:35:17 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: thanks
18:35:47 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: sure no hurry, we can let the current rebased run finish before we update the patch, so that we get the validation
18:35:55 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thx
18:36:01 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: plan sound okay to you?
18:36:21 <rkukura> sure
18:36:27 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, thanks
18:36:38 <SumitNaiksatam> so we will wait until tomorrow to +2/A this
18:36:57 <SumitNaiksatam> assuming (touch wood), this consistently passes the gate
18:37:25 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
18:37:46 <SumitNaiksatam> FYI - the stable/liberty branches are being eol'ed
18:38:00 <SumitNaiksatam> i have requested that the GBP branches be not eol'ed
18:38:05 <SumitNaiksatam> and i dont think they will be touched
18:38:33 <SumitNaiksatam> but since the other project branches will be eol’ed our devstack gate job will soon stop working on the stable/liberty patches
18:39:31 * tbachman just realized that he needs to check the EOL status of networking-cisco
18:39:36 <SumitNaiksatam> so we will have to just rely on the py27 job once that happens (it hasnt happened yet, so the results of those jobs should still be taken into consideration when voting on a patch)
18:39:47 <rkukura> Same will happen for mitaka next, right? Do we know if the short cycle now will mean that is in less than 6 months?
18:39:55 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: okay, i think there is a list
18:40:04 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: :-(
18:40:07 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thx
18:40:09 <SumitNaiksatam> i wish you hadnt said that
18:40:12 <tbachman> lol
18:40:16 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i will check on the list
18:40:21 <tbachman> thx
18:40:28 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: don’t sweat it — I can dig it up
18:40:49 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: rkukura just gave you more to work on anyway ;)
18:40:59 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: :-(
18:41:01 <tbachman> lol
18:41:28 <SumitNaiksatam> our rally job has been broken for a few days
18:41:59 <SumitNaiksatam> it was actually broken for other projects too, i have to check how they fixed it
18:42:16 <SumitNaiksatam> we might have to cap some setuptools dependency
18:42:38 <SumitNaiksatam> other that i am gettting the aim job to work now
18:42:42 <SumitNaiksatam> hopefully it should be ready soon
18:43:35 <SumitNaiksatam> meeting logistics - there are no openstack project meetings happening over the next couple of weeks
18:44:04 <SumitNaiksatam> we wil meet next week only if there is some urgent need, otherwise the meeting is cancelled for the next couple of weeks
18:44:14 <SumitNaiksatam> if we are meeting next week, i will ping you, else assume we are not
18:44:20 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i know you will be on PTO
18:44:30 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: ack. From 20th - 27th
18:44:37 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: so dont bother about this even if we end up meeting
18:44:44 <tbachman> k
18:44:48 <SumitNaiksatam> i will be on leave too
18:44:56 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else that we need to discuss?
18:45:22 <SumitNaiksatam> its a big relief that we are finally making progress on the expunge_all stuff!
18:45:22 <rkukura> not that I can think of
18:45:26 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura:  ok thanks
18:45:49 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: any parting year end thoughts?
18:46:07 <SumitNaiksatam> “parting” could also be interpreted as “partying” ;-)
18:46:21 <songole> SumitNaiksatam: happy holidays .. :)
18:46:27 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: nice one :-)
18:46:53 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: thanks again for all your work, anything else?
18:47:13 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: not from me, other than to wish all a happy holidays!
18:47:32 <SumitNaiksatam> yeah, thanks for all the work during the year, and happy holidays to all@
18:47:35 <SumitNaiksatam> !
18:47:40 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks for joining today
18:47:43 <SumitNaiksatam> bye all!
18:47:46 <songole> bye
18:47:47 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam:  thank you!
18:47:51 <tbachman> bye!
18:47:52 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting