20:59:56 <mikal> #startmeeting nova
20:59:57 <anteaya> o/
20:59:57 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun 18 20:59:56 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mikal. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:59:58 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:00 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
21:00:12 <mikal> #topic Release status
21:00:16 <mriedem> ohi
21:00:26 <beagles> o/
21:00:28 <mnestratov> o/
21:00:28 <mikal> So the first thing on the agenda for today is release status stuff.
21:00:34 <mikal> Liberty-1 is somewhere between 23 and 25 June
21:00:38 <mrda> o/
21:00:45 <mikal> And is the deadline for spec approval for non-priority work
21:00:54 <alaski> o/
21:00:58 <mikal> Thanks to those who helped out on spec review day
21:01:06 <mikal> But we do need to keep focus on spec review for just a little bit longer
21:01:25 <mikal> I see there are a lot of specs with negative feedback for example, which probably means their authors need to take another look at them
21:01:39 <bauzas> \o
21:01:44 <mikal> Any other thoughts on spec reviews before we move on?
21:02:14 <kfox1111> :/
21:02:28 <mikal> Ok, John also wanted me to remind y'all about liberty priorities
21:02:35 <mikal> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-priorities-tracking
21:02:44 <dansmith> o/
21:02:48 <mikal> There are specs on there as well as code, so its relevant to the current spec review push as well
21:02:53 <mriedem> the trivial bug review list has been languishing
21:02:55 <mriedem> on the etherpad
21:03:10 <bauzas> mriedem: correct
21:03:12 <edleafe> o/
21:03:17 <mikal> mriedem: that's probably true. I feel like all I've had time for myself is spec reviews.
21:03:17 <vilobhmm1> how do we handle stuck spec reviews….either talk about them in sub-project meetings or anything else because contacting the person whom you might want the spec to get reviewed might be already swapmed with other specs
21:03:19 <mriedem> i blame bauzas' baby
21:03:34 <bauzas> mriedem: blame rather some spec implem...
21:03:44 <mikal> vilobhmm1: it depends why its stuck I suppose. Is there disagreement, or just a reviewer gone AWOL?
21:03:58 <dansmith> vilobhmm1: I don't think yours is stuck
21:04:05 <dansmith> it's just not getting a lot of action
21:04:11 <mriedem> stuck means contention
21:04:21 <dims> o/
21:04:36 <claudiub> o/
21:04:53 <mikal> Yeah, so it there's no unsolvable dispute on the review, I think its just reviewers being buried
21:04:56 <vilobhmm1> dansmith : ok…but in that case as well attending sub -rpoejct meeting is a better option ?
21:04:56 <mikal> "just"
21:05:03 <vilobhmm1> yep
21:05:05 <mikal> I don't have a good fix for that apart from patience unfortunately
21:05:14 <bauzas> vilobhmm1: sounds good
21:05:24 <vilobhmm1> bauzas : ok
21:05:29 <mikal> vilobhmm1: yeah, a heap of +1s from respected sub-team members never hurts
21:05:40 <mikal> Anything else on specs before we move on?
21:05:41 <vilobhmm1> mikal : sure…thanks
21:06:03 <mikal> #topic Summit followup
21:06:04 <kfox1111> what about the nova instance user spec? I think most of the barbican and keystone folks are on board now, but have heard very little from nova reviewers.
21:06:16 <mikal> #undo
21:06:17 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x9a1a4d0>
21:06:27 <mikal> kfox1111: got a review link?
21:06:32 <kfox1111> yup. just a sec.
21:06:46 <kfox1111> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186617
21:07:08 <mriedem> kfox1111: not stuck
21:07:11 <kfox1111> the 23'rds getting really close.
21:07:11 <mriedem> just not getting attention
21:07:41 <mikal> Well, its got a lot of detailed review comments in the past
21:07:53 <mikal> Two on the 18th even
21:08:00 <mikal> I think we just need to let that one go through the process
21:08:14 <kfox1111> Is there a way to partially approve it so that it can continue past the 23rd?
21:08:26 <mikal> kfox1111: that is a question from johnthetubaguy
21:08:35 <mriedem> kfox1111: if the barbican and keystone people are on board why aren't they +1 on it?
21:08:39 <mikal> kfox1111: I recommend emailing him, but I am unaware of a plan for spec freeze exceptions
21:08:58 <mriedem> kfox1111: i only see your +1 on your own spec :)
21:09:13 <morganfainberg> mriedem: because we've been discussing it in channels.
21:09:37 <morganfainberg> mriedem: kfox1111 has been really good about involving us, I have not read the final (current) spec version as I wasn't aware it was ready
21:09:38 <mikal> morganfainberg: that's not very visible to us though, could you get some peeps to do a review in gerrit please?
21:09:40 <mriedem> ok, well, i'd consider some weight from the security minded people to be helpful in the outcome of that spec
21:10:03 <morganfainberg> if that helps why we haven't specifically +1'd
21:10:10 <morganfainberg> or at least why i haven't
21:10:27 <morganfainberg> mikal: yes. i'll try and wrangle people
21:10:38 <mikal> morganfainberg: thanks, I think that will help
21:10:38 <kfox1111> morganfainberg: thanks.
21:10:43 <mikal> mriedem: good thinking
21:10:44 <morganfainberg> at least from the keystone side (i make no claims about wrangling barbican folks)
21:10:49 <mikal> mriedem: you brained that well
21:11:19 <mriedem> more compliments please
21:11:20 <mriedem> thanks
21:11:23 <mikal> Heh
21:11:32 <mikal> Ok, anything else on specs and release status?
21:11:33 <kfox1111> I'll try and motivate the barbican side. :/
21:11:35 <kfox1111> thanks.
21:11:59 <mikal> ...nothing...
21:12:06 <mikal> #topic Summit follow ups
21:12:23 <mikal> John also wants to remind us that the etherpad of summit action items exists
21:12:30 <mikal> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-nova-liberty-summit-action-items
21:12:42 <mikal> And that the due date for action items is liberty-1 unless otherwise states
21:12:47 <mikal> So that's like next week people
21:12:54 <mikal> I propose we all panic and run around in circles
21:13:00 <mriedem> second
21:13:03 <tonyb> Oh JOhn's going to be busy then ;P
21:13:05 <bauzas> oh
21:13:06 <mikal> Or assign our action items to someone else
21:13:09 <bauzas> really?
21:13:11 * morganfainberg panics and runs in circles
21:13:16 <mriedem> i honestly though l-1 was spec proposal freeze, not approval
21:13:17 <mriedem> but ok
21:13:33 <mikal> mriedem: no, approval IIRC
21:13:41 <mikal> I have been wrong before, but I don't think is one of those times
21:13:53 <mikal> So... Do your action items people!
21:13:56 <mikal> Or assign them to sdague!
21:14:15 <mikal> Does anyone want to talk more about action items apart from being reminded they exist?
21:14:24 <mriedem> i've assigned all of my mq devstack plugin work to sdague already
21:14:34 <dims> haha
21:14:35 <mikal> mriedem: so noted
21:14:45 <bauzas> just the fact that l-1 sounds great for engaging actions, not resolving them IMHO
21:14:56 <dansmith> mriedem: too soon
21:14:59 <mikal> bauzas: I think we take it on a case by case basis
21:15:05 <bauzas> just because some of them are just so huge that they can't be done that quick
21:15:13 <mikal> bauzas: we do need to get moving on them though, as we only get busier from here
21:15:16 <bauzas> yeah, that's my thouhgt
21:15:32 <mikal> bauzas: I think just do your best and keep the status updated in the etherpad
21:15:35 <bauzas> I mean I understand john, he wants to make sure people are committed
21:15:43 <mikal> We couldn't possibly do the _reviews_ for all of them if they got done in time
21:15:52 <mikal> So I think we just accept its a goal we aspire to but wont meet
21:16:27 <bauzas> fair point
21:16:37 <mikal> Let's move on
21:16:46 <mikal> #topic Non-spec reviews to discuss
21:16:54 <mikal> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/consolidate-libvirt-fs-volume-drivers
21:16:57 <mriedem> that's mine
21:17:06 <mikal> Is this BP trivial?
21:17:09 <mriedem> basically refactor the libvirt volume driver stuff into separate modules,
21:17:11 <mikal> Do we approve it without a spec?
21:17:17 <mriedem> and extract a common base class for the file system drivers
21:17:35 <mriedem> the bp is really just for bookkeeping
21:17:40 <tonyb> I though the view from the m/l was no spec needed
21:17:41 <mikal> It seems sane to me
21:17:45 <mikal> Which I think I said on the thread as well
21:17:48 <mriedem> tonyb: it was from danpb
21:17:52 <mikal> tonyb: no spec, still needs a bp
21:18:23 <alaski> was the config question resolved in the ml?
21:18:29 <mriedem> alaski: yeah, no config option chagnes
21:18:32 <mriedem> b/c cinder multi backend
21:18:35 <alaski> okay
21:18:36 <tonyb> my bad.  I blame the lack of coffee
21:18:41 <alaski> then I'm +1 on bp only
21:18:54 <mikal> So, I am go to approve this...
21:18:58 <mikal> Any objections?
21:19:19 <claudiub> none
21:19:29 <mikal> Going...
21:19:34 <mikal> ...going...
21:19:41 <mikal> ...gone
21:19:45 <mriedem> danka
21:20:07 <mikal> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/vmware-limits
21:20:14 <mikal> This one is the next candidate for non-spec approval
21:20:39 <mikal> Any thoughts?
21:20:54 <mriedem> there is a spec for it here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192675/
21:20:59 <mriedem> so not sure why it's on the list...
21:21:16 <tjones1> yeah there's a spec :-)
21:21:31 <mikal> Ok, so we want to skip over it here then?
21:21:55 <alaski> it's proposing flavor extra_spec additions, I would prefer the spec
21:22:06 <mikal> Ok, works for me
21:22:06 <mriedem> there are a handful of changes to the code
21:22:08 <mriedem> with several docimpacts
21:22:15 <melwitt> one of the patches for that has a +2 but the spec isn't approved yet?
21:22:29 <mikal> melwitt: time for a procedural -2?
21:22:30 <mriedem> melwitt: feel free to procedural -2
21:22:40 <dansmith> +1 for -2
21:22:46 <melwitt> okay
21:22:52 <dansmith> melwitt: first -2?
21:22:54 <claudiub> -2++
21:22:57 <tjones1> awwwww
21:23:02 <dansmith> melwitt: if so, savor it slowly
21:23:09 <mikal> Heh
21:23:12 <bauzas> I'm a bit confused by the limits stuff but let's discuss in the spec
21:23:14 <melwitt> :P
21:23:28 <mikal> Ok, let's move on
21:23:33 <mikal> #topic Stuck spec reviews
21:23:42 <mikal> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-priorities-tracking
21:23:51 <mikal> That URL lists some classes of "stuck spec"
21:24:16 <mikal> (at the end, but the list is long)
21:24:46 <mikal> I'm not really sure how we progress those in this meeting
21:24:53 <mikal> Except for making sure people are aware of them
21:25:03 <mikal> For example, I was on that list for a while as blocking things, but didn't realize it
21:25:06 <bauzas> right, I missed that
21:26:02 <mikal> So, I guess this is mostly just drawing that to people's attention unless we have other ideas for how to progress it
21:26:11 <claudiub> well, if there is any spec owner, with spec on that list, they should speak up?
21:26:14 <bauzas> mmm, most of them are not actually stuck, just waiting reviews
21:26:30 <mikal> Yeah, some of it is a search for consistency
21:26:40 <mikal> For example, what bar are we holding volume drivers to?
21:26:43 <edleafe> we need another word for "stuck"
21:26:50 <bauzas> could we just drop the use of word 'stuck' and use 'controversial' instead ?
21:26:52 <dansmith> contended
21:26:55 <mikal> edleafe: we need more words for stuck
21:27:07 <claudiub> bauzas: +1
21:27:09 <mikal> We're like eskimos... We need many words for "lost in code review land"
21:27:26 <edleafe> "contented" vs. "stalled"
21:27:27 <mnestratov> please pay attention to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184295/ which is about vzstorage support
21:27:30 <anteaya> inuit
21:27:37 <edleafe> s/contented/contended
21:27:49 * bauzas won't try to provide good wording
21:27:52 <mikal> mnestratov: its already on the list
21:28:08 <mikal> But yeah, you get the idea
21:28:18 <mriedem> mnestratov: it's not stuck/contended/deadlocked
21:28:25 <mriedem> mnestratov: address johnthetubaguy's -1
21:28:29 <mriedem> let's move on
21:28:51 <mnestratov> ok. I see. it is ready in cinder and was waiting for CI to be run against nova
21:29:01 <mikal> I'm looking at the two specs listed in the agenda
21:29:04 <mnestratov> which is done
21:29:07 <mikal> And they don't seem particularly stuck to me
21:29:33 <mikal> So unless someone knows why they're there let's keep going
21:29:48 <mnestratov> mriedem: it is addressed
21:29:58 <mikal> #topic Stable branch status
21:30:03 <mikal> Anything we need to talk about here?
21:30:08 <mriedem> stable is fine, icehouse last release is tagged and out for testing
21:30:13 <mriedem> icehouse should be eol soon
21:30:24 <mikal> Cool
21:30:33 <mikal> #topic Gate status
21:30:35 <mriedem> fine
21:30:36 <mriedem> http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/index.html
21:30:43 <mikal> #topic Critical bugs
21:30:43 <mriedem> there is one thing with the gate,
21:30:49 <mikal> #undo
21:30:49 <mriedem> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192348/ - adds logging for a network race bug
21:30:50 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x9be97d0>
21:31:10 <mriedem> so eyes on that please since the bug is rare enough to be annoying to track
21:31:15 <mikal> Ok, I can review that after the meeting
21:31:32 <mriedem> that's it, thanks
21:31:40 <mikal> #topic Critical bugs
21:31:58 <mikal> None!
21:31:58 <bauzas> so, zero/zero
21:32:03 <mikal> Yay!
21:32:13 <mikal> #topic Open Discussion
21:32:23 <mikal> Nothing some items for this on the agenda before we free for all
21:32:33 <mikal> oslo.config auto config generation is dropped
21:32:52 <mikal> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/oslo-config-generator
21:33:11 <mikal> Is anyone passionate about this?
21:33:35 <dims> mikal:  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180013/ is being held up
21:33:39 <mikal> Or do we just review the patch for the new oslo way and move on?
21:34:06 <dims> which is what i'd prefer needless to say :)
21:34:55 <mikal> dims: yeah, I think this is a call for someone to work with you on getting that patch (or its replacement) through
21:35:07 <bauzas> dims: is haypo aware of that one ?
21:35:30 <dims> mikal: bauzas: yes i can work with haypo, just need agreement that we can get rid of old generator.py from nova
21:35:48 <mikal> Its in openstack/common, right?
21:35:53 <dims> yes
21:36:16 <mikal> So I feel that if its been removed from the source of that code (i.e. the cut side of the cut and paste), then we have to do something to get rid of it in nova
21:36:23 <mikal> That might just take some time as we work out what to do
21:37:12 <dims> mikal i can take comments and rework the patch, just want to be clear that old one is going away
21:37:22 <mikal> I'll take a look at the patch later today
21:37:32 <mikal> dims: yeah, fair enough.
21:37:45 <mikal> Other oslo things for liberty...
21:37:50 <mikal> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-June/067131.html
21:38:05 <mikal> John is asking if anyone wants to run with this on the nova side?
21:38:42 <mikal> Ok, final thing from John...
21:38:53 <mikal> THe next version of nova, liberty-1, will be 12.0.0b1
21:38:56 <dims> mikal: i have been doing the oslo work, haypo is starting to help
21:39:03 <mikal> Which I like because its easy to pronounce
21:39:07 <mikal> dims: excellent
21:39:11 <mikal> And with that
21:39:18 <mikal> ...Let the open open discussion begin!...
21:39:22 <dims> i had one, fix for bug 1464381 should it be a bug fix? (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191095/) or needs a microversion? (spec - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191151/)
21:39:24 <openstack> bug 1464381 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "can't get instances from different tenants even if policy.json is set properly for that" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1464381 - Assigned to Davanum Srinivas (DIMS) (dims-v)
21:39:45 <dims> sdague was leaning towards bug fix
21:39:46 <mriedem> dims: i thought sdague said in the spec he didn't think it needed to be a microversion
21:39:57 <dims> mriedem: got a contradict from alex
21:39:58 <mriedem> but it's an upgradeimpact / securityimpact on the fix
21:40:01 <mriedem> since the policy has to change
21:40:15 <dims> yes, i added those tags to the bug fix
21:40:44 <mriedem> well i guess if you look up 'stuck review' we should just have a pointer to this one then
21:40:46 <mriedem> :)
21:40:55 <claudiub> We have a spec-less feature parity blueprint. AFAIK, parity bps don't need specs. Was hoping it could be approved? https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyper-v-block-device-mapping-support
21:40:59 <mikal> Are sdague and Alex here now?
21:41:05 <mikal> We could make them... Talk about it
21:41:10 <melwitt> dims: I saw alex_xu's comment but don't yet understand it, so I thought some discussion would ensue
21:41:15 <alaski> I lean in favor of not needing a microversion
21:41:26 <dims> alaski: what about v2, need the fix there too
21:41:27 <mriedem> i also dont think a microversion is warranted here
21:41:44 <mriedem> dims: if there is no microversion then it seems legit to fix in v2 also
21:41:49 <dims> we don't have microversions there
21:41:49 <mikal> So I think you should say all that on the review
21:41:51 <mikal> Both of you
21:42:04 <mriedem> fair enough
21:42:15 <dims> cool, i'll drop the spec
21:42:18 <dims> thanks!
21:42:23 <mikal> claudiub: now you!
21:42:29 <claudiub> yeay!
21:42:41 <mikal> That bp looks trivial to me
21:42:44 <mikal> Does anyone disagree?
21:42:46 <mikal> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyper-v-block-device-mapping-support
21:43:18 <alaski> not I
21:43:33 <mikal> I will approve unless someone objects in...
21:43:34 <mikal> 3...
21:43:42 <mikal> 2...
21:43:53 <mikal> 1...
21:44:01 <mikal> Approved!
21:44:08 <claudiub> another thingy
21:44:14 <claudiub> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyperv-storage-qos
21:44:17 <claudiub> spec was approved
21:44:47 <mikal> Oh, I can fix that now
21:44:48 <claudiub> actually, mikal approved the spec. :)
21:44:58 <mikal> Fixed
21:45:06 <claudiub> thanks!
21:45:09 <mikal> Next!
21:45:22 <mikal> Nothing else?
21:45:26 <mikal> Can I have 15 minutes back?
21:45:31 * mikal looks hopeful
21:45:55 <mikal> Sounds like I can!
21:46:00 <mikal> See ya all later
21:46:01 <claudiub> fine by me.
21:46:04 <claudiub> o/
21:46:06 <mikal> #endmeeting