20:59:57 <dansmith> #startmeeting nova
20:59:58 <openstack> Meeting started Thu May 26 20:59:57 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is dansmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:59:59 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:01 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
21:00:07 <rlrossit> o/
21:00:10 <melwitt> o/
21:00:11 <dansmith> I am religiously opposed to the pre-ping, so I'm not doing it
21:00:19 <takashin> o/
21:00:26 <bauzas> \o
21:00:31 <jroll> \o
21:00:35 <gagehugo> /o/
21:00:38 <edleafe> \o
21:00:59 * edleafe admires dansmith's convictions
21:01:01 <dansmith> seven people isn't even quorum, right? guess we have to cancel?
21:01:09 <alaski> o/
21:01:10 <bauzas> heh
21:01:10 <doffm> ./
21:01:18 <dansmith> #topic Release News
21:01:23 <woodster_> o/
21:01:25 <auggy> o/
21:01:27 <scottda> hi
21:01:27 <dansmith> #link Newton release schedule: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Newton_Release_Schedule
21:01:31 <dansmith> #info June 2: newton-1, non-priority spec approval freeze
21:01:46 <dansmith> anyone have anything here?
21:02:03 <dansmith> obviously the upcoming deadline should be on everyone's minds
21:02:12 <dansmith> I've been trying to do mostly reviews this week including specs
21:02:22 <dansmith> which has me in a great mood
21:02:29 <bauzas> ++
21:02:34 <dansmith> (sarcasm)
21:02:44 <dansmith> moving on in 10 seconds
21:02:49 * auggy just always assume dansmith == sarcasm
21:02:55 <dansmith> #topic Bugs
21:03:02 <dansmith> bugs, we have 'em
21:03:14 <dansmith> the gate has been pretty good recently I think
21:03:27 <tonyb> the EU/APC bugs meeting moved ....
21:03:34 <dansmith> #link check queue gate status http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/index.html
21:03:48 <dansmith> tonyb: oh? to when or where?
21:03:54 <bauzas> 2 hours earlier AFAIR
21:04:11 <bauzas> like 0700UTC
21:04:15 <bauzas> tonyb: correct?
21:04:18 <tonyb> 2 hours earlier
21:04:21 <tonyb> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Nova_Bugs_Team_Meeting
21:04:21 <dansmith> #info EU/APAC bugs meeting moved -2 hours
21:04:47 <dansmith> cool, thanks
21:04:50 <bauzas> well, 0700UTC is not really EU-friendly, but whatever... :)
21:05:03 <dansmith> #link http://ci-watch.tintri.com/project?project=nova&time=7+days
21:05:10 <dansmith> I think xenserver CI is back on track, right?
21:05:26 <bauzas> I saw some thread about the Intel CI
21:05:27 <dansmith> also of note for this section is that DB2 CI went away sometime in the past, intentionally, and isn't coming back
21:05:32 <tonyb> bauzas: 0800, but yeah 1000 was better
21:05:38 <dansmith> we celebrated with a removal of all the super annoying DB2isms from the migrations
21:06:02 <tonyb> *celebrated* is that code?
21:06:04 <jroll> \o/
21:06:10 <dansmith> anything else here? any critical bugs to highlight?
21:06:51 <auggy> i just had another item, markus_z mentioned he'd be expiring old open bug reports, details in this ML post - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/095654.html
21:06:59 <dansmith> ah yes, thanks
21:07:06 <dansmith> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/095654.html
21:07:11 <bauzas> *very* old bugs :)
21:07:21 <auggy> Automatic closing of 185 bug reports which are older than 18 months in the week R-13
21:07:32 <bauzas> 18 months is just prehistory
21:07:42 <dansmith> people on twitter informed me that we're bad for doing this, but the rest of the people that do actual work all agreed this was a good plan
21:08:03 <bauzas> ranting on twitter is just not a fair game
21:08:04 <dansmith> anything else on bugs?
21:08:17 <tonyb> I think we're bad but it's the least terrible option
21:08:22 <dansmith> heh
21:08:32 <tonyb> just so dan can include IRC in the list of bad places ;P
21:09:01 <dansmith> #topic Reminders
21:09:06 <dansmith> #link Newton review focus list: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-nova-priorities-tracking
21:09:15 <dansmith> if you're not looking at that to know what to review, you should be
21:09:23 <dansmith> if you're not updating it for your subteam, then you can't complain
21:09:53 <dansmith> #info We have 59 approved blueprints: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/newton - 6 are completed, 5 have not started, 3 are blocked
21:10:16 * dansmith giggles at 59 approved
21:10:34 <dansmith> and, final reminder:
21:10:35 <dansmith> #help https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/BugTriage#Weekly_bug_skimming_duty Volunteers for 1 week of bug skimming duty?
21:11:09 <dansmith> looks like there were a couple people for this week
21:11:27 <dansmith> next week needs some non-US not-holiday-having people to sign up
21:11:54 <dansmith> if you're interested in helping, put your name on that list.. no license or proof of insurance required
21:12:10 <auggy> also if you have questions on what it entails, feel free to ask me or markus_z
21:12:18 <dansmith> any other reminders?
21:12:42 <dansmith> alrighty then
21:12:50 <dansmith> #topic Stable branch status
21:12:57 <dansmith> #link Stable branch status: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/stable-tracker
21:13:11 <dansmith> just before the meeting I looked at the two open stale branch bug lists:
21:13:16 <dansmith> #link stable/mitaka: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/mitaka,n,z
21:13:24 <dansmith> #link stable/liberty: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/liberty,n,z
21:13:32 <dansmith> nothing looked too badly on fire there
21:13:34 <tonyb> heeh 'stale' ;P
21:13:43 <dansmith> anyone need to highlight something?
21:13:49 <dansmith> tonyb: heh, oops, but not really :D
21:14:12 <auggy> trumpian slip
21:14:19 <dansmith> tonyb: certainly you have something important and profound to say about stable things?
21:14:31 <tonyb> dansmith: Umm yeah ;P
21:14:39 <dansmith> my, how profound!
21:14:49 * dansmith contemplates deeply
21:14:55 <tonyb> just the normal ... the queue is a little long but I'll start on that today
21:15:00 <tonyb> more reviews is good
21:15:03 <tonyb> the gate is fine
21:15:07 <dansmith> woot
21:15:08 <tonyb> kilo is dying but not dead
21:15:21 * dansmith hands tonyb some heavier artillery to finish it off
21:15:31 <tonyb> :)
21:15:41 <dansmith> #topic Subteam Highlights
21:15:44 <bauzas> people always love to loose kilo(s)
21:15:48 <dansmith> alaski: say things
21:15:58 <tonyb> bauzas: boom tish
21:16:05 <alaski> melwitt is helping to push on devstack changes around transport_url
21:16:06 <bauzas> :D
21:16:13 <alaski> which will help with our migration commands to cellsv2
21:16:21 <bauzas> tonyb: too hard for people using imperial metrics, I guess
21:16:30 <alaski> we discussed a potential race condition, and then found a solution
21:16:36 <alaski> tons of stuff to review
21:16:39 <alaski> fin
21:16:44 <dansmith> nice
21:16:54 <dansmith> edleafe: say fewer things
21:17:04 <edleafe> dansmith: ...
21:17:08 <dansmith> perfect
21:17:21 <bauzas> ROFL
21:17:57 <dansmith> edleafe: anything to actually report on scheduler?
21:18:25 <edleafe> still some conflict over fixed vs dynamic resource classes, etc
21:18:34 <jroll> this took longer than laski, gw dansmith
21:18:46 <dansmith> jroll: heh
21:19:26 <edleafe> maybe some more eyes on https://review.openstack.org/312696
21:19:35 <edleafe> ^^ dynamic resource class spec
21:19:44 <dansmith> yeah, I need to look at that and rain some hate
21:20:04 <jroll> ++ for d-r-c
21:20:07 * jroll kinda needs that
21:20:47 <dansmith> edleafe: anything else? you're holding up the schedule
21:20:50 * dansmith cracks himself up
21:21:02 <jroll> lol
21:21:12 <edleafe> I thought this was async
21:21:21 <edleafe> nah, that's it
21:21:24 <dansmith> okay cool
21:21:35 <dansmith> I'm guessing PaulMurray isn't around
21:21:43 <dansmith> anyone want to say things about live migration?
21:21:57 <dansmith> I know that a bunch of storage pool stuff is getting worked out right now,
21:22:22 <dansmith> we've landed a good number of cleanups, the spec is under review, and folks are stacking up refactor patches like nobody's business
21:22:49 <dansmith> okay then
21:23:02 <dansmith> I think sdague is EOD.. alex_xu are you around to say things about API?
21:23:16 <auggy> or oomichi ?
21:23:31 <dansmith> auggy: I'm a meeting agenda literalist
21:23:53 <auggy> didn't mean to rain on your parade ;)
21:24:01 <bauzas> I guess they were still targeting at the api-ref changes
21:24:06 <dansmith> moshele isn't around to talk about sriov things, so we'll skip that
21:24:28 <dansmith> bauzas: yep, and I know oomichi has the patch up to remove 2.0, discussion about timing to follow
21:24:50 <dansmith> gibi: notifications? anything?
21:25:02 <bauzas> dansmith: orly? I'd so happy to use my axe
21:25:10 <bauzas> (for the v2.0 removal patch)
21:25:16 <dansmith> bauzas: yeah
21:25:28 <dansmith> okay, well, let's move on.. this is taking way too long
21:25:33 <dansmith> #topic Stuck Reviews
21:25:38 <rlrossit> dansmith: :(
21:25:43 <dansmith> #undo
21:25:44 <bauzas> FWIW, impressive progress on api-ref http://burndown.dague.org/
21:25:45 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0xb3bbd50>
21:25:49 <dansmith> rlrossit: more things to say?
21:25:57 <rlrossit> both specs in 1 nova, 1 oslo
21:26:06 <rlrossit> syjulian working on oslo schema generation
21:26:15 <rlrossit> gibi working on most of the transformation work
21:26:17 * rlrossit is done
21:26:24 <dansmith> okay cool, thanks
21:26:29 <dansmith> #topic Stuck Reviews
21:26:37 <dansmith> There are none listed on the wiki
21:26:52 <dansmith> also, I personally surveyed every open nova review before the meeting and have deemed none to be stuck
21:27:22 <dansmith> #topic Open Discussion
21:27:38 <jroll> ohai, I have a thing
21:27:38 <dansmith> jroll: ironic serial console... did you see someone from NEC put up a spec for this?
21:27:45 <dansmith> I added you to it earlier today
21:27:49 <jroll> dansmith: yes, there's a spec, I don't think we need a spec
21:27:59 <dansmith> the spec is pretty detail-free so having no spec is mostly equivalent to me
21:28:03 <dansmith> cool
21:28:06 <jroll> dansmith: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/319507/ right?
21:28:09 <dansmith> jroll: you're just trolling for approval?
21:28:18 <jroll> well, johnthetubaguy said the next step is add to agenda
21:28:20 <dansmith> jroll: that's the one
21:28:24 <jroll> so I did
21:28:39 <jroll> approval would be cool, should be pretty trivial code
21:28:52 <dansmith> alaski: you're the only other approver here.. you cool with that? if so I'll stamp
21:28:59 <alaski> yes, I'm good
21:29:00 <jroll> ironic start-console $node_id; return (host, port)
21:29:18 <jroll> <3
21:29:20 <jroll> thanks y'all
21:29:24 <yuikotakadamori_> jroll, that's right, thank you
21:29:24 <dansmith> cool
21:29:27 * jroll goes off to grill things
21:29:36 <dansmith> alaski: you had a thing
21:29:42 <alaski> yes, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/320416
21:29:55 <alaski> this ties into the live-migrate refactor that was discussed at the summit
21:30:19 <alaski> but it would change the error returns from the API
21:30:24 <dansmith> okay I'm thinking maybe sdague and PaulMurray as reviewers here, but neither are around
21:30:35 <alaski> as in, it would no longer check preconditions on computes before returning a response
21:30:43 <alaski> yes, they would be good to get input from
21:31:15 <alaski> I mostly want to get consensus on supporting two paths, or just changing the error conditions
21:31:24 <alaski> and I'd rather not support two paths
21:31:48 <dansmith> yeah
21:31:49 <alaski> anyone with interest please comment on the review
21:32:00 <dansmith> and it should mostly be admin-facing api at this point, so.. probably not a huge deal
21:32:05 <dansmith> I hate to keep using that excuse, but..
21:32:11 <alaski> yes
21:32:19 <alaski> and errors would surface via instance-actions
21:32:23 <alaski> so they're not invisible
21:32:37 <bauzas> alaski: that's not what I understand when reading the spec or I'm wrong
21:32:58 <alaski> bauzas: it changes the two calls into compute nodes to be casts
21:33:47 <dansmith> alaski: so, that does mean you're not guaranteed that a migration has been started when you return from the call
21:33:53 <dansmith> which might make some HA people twitchy
21:34:04 <dansmith> you should be able to monitor that it started through other mechanisms, but...
21:34:04 <bauzas> alaski: oh, I see, what he calls 'blocking' is the call from conductor to compute, not API to conductor
21:34:13 <alaski> bauzas: yes
21:34:29 <alaski> dansmith: I'd have to look, but we may not make that guarantee today either
21:34:37 <dansmith> ah, okay, based on above
21:34:38 <dansmith> okay cool
21:34:47 <bauzas> I think we're already async on the API side
21:34:49 <alaski> it's the prechecks that block
21:35:01 <bauzas> that's just the conductor blocking for a while because of the compute limbo callds
21:35:01 <dansmith> okay, so anyway, comments requested on the review.. anything else we should discuss here/
21:35:08 <auggy> i have one quick thing
21:35:16 <dansmith> auggy: I mean about this
21:35:19 <alaski> nope, just wanted awareness since it ties into something we agreed to do.
21:35:20 <auggy> oh sorry
21:35:21 <dansmith> auggy: we have one more thing on the list before we move on
21:35:25 <alaski> and it's sort of a large change
21:35:32 * alaski sits down
21:35:46 <dansmith> takashin: you have a re-approval spec you want
21:35:51 <takashin> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/add-swap-volume-notifications
21:35:57 <dansmith> takashin: that is a link to the blueprint, do you have a spec too?
21:36:04 <takashin> It was approved for Mitaka. I would like to make it be approved for Newton.
21:36:13 <takashin> Yes.
21:36:38 <takashin> Sorry.No.
21:36:41 <dansmith> takashin: okay I don't see one
21:36:42 <dansmith> okay
21:36:55 <dansmith> I guess it was specless?
21:37:12 <takashin> Yes.It was specless.
21:37:38 <dansmith> alaski: I don't think I've seen this before or know anything about it, but it's just adding a few notifications, so I guess we're good?
21:38:04 <alaski> yeah, seems totally non contentious
21:38:17 <melwitt> it seems okay to me
21:38:27 <dansmith> okie dokie, done
21:38:45 <dansmith> okay that's the end of the list of open discussion things.. auggy you had a thing?
21:38:47 <takashin> Thank you.
21:38:49 <dansmith> hopefully a very very short thing?
21:38:50 <auggy> last week i updated the Mentorship wiki page with tasks for new contributors - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/Mentoring
21:39:12 <auggy> it's still incomplete but if you have things to add, either let me know and i'll do it or feel free to add them
21:39:14 <auggy> that's all :)
21:39:24 <dansmith> alright
21:39:30 <dansmith> anything else from anyone?
21:39:52 <dansmith> anyone?
21:39:58 <dansmith> anyone?
21:40:07 <dansmith> beuller?
21:40:13 <esnyder> newbie meta question about spec approval process
21:40:42 <dansmith> esnyder: shoot
21:40:53 <esnyder> is it appropriate to be proposing specs with api changes where upstream dependencies are still up in the error, or is that always bad form?
21:41:08 <esnyder> (re https://review.openstack.org/#/c/310050/)
21:41:43 <dansmith> esnyder: the up in the air bit here is the VSOCK stuff?
21:41:53 <esnyder> yes
21:42:10 <dansmith> right, so because that has to filter down to us through the kernel, qemu, and libvirt at least,
21:42:18 <dansmith> and then the distros,
21:42:35 <dansmith> approving that before things are much closer to being consumable is not likely to happen, IMHO
21:42:46 <esnyder> exactly; we're just trying to keep as much parallel motion going as possible, but don't want to be out of turn here
21:42:59 <esnyder> ok, thanks
21:43:08 <dansmith> yep, and that's cool.. I also appreciate the desire the use 9p as the proving ground,
21:43:17 <alaski> a backlog spec might be more appropriate for now to capture discussion, and then move to a full spec when dependencies are in place
21:43:34 <dansmith> it's just that 9p has a lot of bad issues for nova, etc that it's not really a viable alternative even for a PoC I think
21:43:57 <dansmith> alaski: yeah, although I think they mostly have things fleshed out, so just merging the spec when the time is right is probably fine too
21:44:28 <dansmith> alaski: it's not like they have an idea and no plan to do it, they're just waiting for the goodness to get finished in another community so it can filter down to us
21:44:29 <alaski> sure. the backlog spec just avoids the -2 parade at the end of the cycle
21:44:46 <dansmith> alaski: or we could -2 it now .. but yeah :)
21:44:49 <dansmith> either way
21:44:59 <alaski> yeah, just mentioning it as an alternative
21:45:04 <esnyder> so i should just move it from newton/approved to newton/backlog?
21:45:05 <dansmith> yup
21:45:12 <dansmith> esnyder: you can if you want
21:45:17 <alaski> esnyder: it's an option, not necessary
21:45:20 <esnyder> ok, thanks for the feedback
21:45:37 <dansmith> okay, anything else/
21:45:51 <dansmith> this has been the worst "shortest meeting ever" attempt, so I apologize for that
21:45:57 <dansmith> I blame all the people showing up and talking
21:46:12 <bauzas> we should look at the logs and point out names
21:46:20 <dansmith> they know who they are
21:46:23 * auggy hides
21:46:30 <edleafe> I tried to be quiet
21:46:40 <tonyb> shush!
21:46:43 <dansmith> edleafe: yeah, you were part of the solution
21:46:56 <dansmith> okay, I believe we're done here.. someone second my motion to adjourn
21:47:03 <edleafe> +2
21:47:03 <bauzas> +2
21:47:04 <tonyb> seconded
21:47:04 <alaski> seconded
21:47:05 <auggy> i concur
21:47:08 * claudiub prepares tumble weeds
21:47:12 <dansmith> excellent, consensus
21:47:15 <dansmith> #endmeeting