16:00:22 <gibi> #startmeeting nova
16:00:23 <openstack> Meeting started Thu May 14 16:00:22 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gibi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:24 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:26 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
16:00:31 <gibi> o/
16:00:39 <bauzas> \o
16:00:44 <gmann> o/
16:00:44 <dansmith> o/
16:00:55 <artom> ~o~
16:00:58 * bauzas now sweats after running for being in time
16:01:06 <bauzas> I'm probably breathing too loud
16:01:49 <gibi> lets get started
16:01:51 <gibi> #topic Bugs (stuck/critical)
16:01:53 * artom follows the ea/ee switch to its logical end, and concludes that bauzas is sweeting for the meating.
16:02:03 <gibi> No critical bugs
16:02:09 <lyarwood> \o
16:02:16 <gibi> #link 29 new untriaged bugs (-2 since the last meeting): https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New
16:02:22 <bauzas> artom: you're meen
16:02:54 <gibi> is there any bug that needs special attention on this meeting?
16:03:56 <gibi> if not then moving forward
16:04:18 <gibi> #topic Release Planning
16:04:23 <gibi> Ussuri has been released #link https://www.openstack.org/software/ussuri/
16:04:26 <gibi> Thank you all for making this release happen!
16:04:56 * gibi is going to have a cold beer for Ussuri after the meeting
16:05:03 <bauzas> fortunately, we aren't on Slack where stupid emojis and GIFs could happen
16:05:17 <bauzas> IRC++
16:05:32 <gibi> I can try to copy-paste some ASCII art if needed ;]
16:06:04 <artom> bauzas, 🚁 you were saying?
16:06:47 <bauzas> moving on ? :)
16:06:54 <gibi> is there anything about the past or the coming release to discuss today?
16:07:14 <gibi> I guess not so then
16:07:16 <gibi> #topic Stable Branches
16:07:31 <gibi> lyarwood: do you have any news for us?
16:08:04 <lyarwood> gibi: nothing for stable today
16:08:12 <gibi> thanks
16:08:19 <gibi> #topic Sub/related team Highlights
16:08:23 <gibi> API (gmann)
16:08:29 <gmann> one things to disucss
16:08:56 <gmann> for policy work we left the deprecated APIs to move to new defaults and scope
16:09:47 <gmann> I can complete those in this cycle so that when we remove the old defaults we can remove from all
16:10:11 <gmann> johnthetubaguy point was we should do for deprecated APIs also as they are still supported.
16:10:22 <gmann> opinion?
16:10:33 <gmann> deprecated APIs are mostly proxy APIs
16:10:51 <artom> We still have those?
16:10:58 <gibi> I have no objection adding the new scopes for the still supported but deprecated APIs
16:11:02 <bauzas> I thought stephenfin made a huge cleanup
16:11:14 <bauzas> which ones are we talking of ?
16:11:35 <gmann> bauzas: for nova-network its gone but other are there like sec grp, volume , image
16:11:47 <bauzas> ah rght
16:12:07 <bauzas> so then I tend to agree with johnthetubaguy
16:12:35 <gibi> gmann: please file a blueprint for tracking purposes
16:12:36 * artom is still reading through the api-ref, but they all look to have been removed entirely in some microversion...
16:12:43 <gmann> its policy things otherwise we can say no enhancement to deprecated things
16:13:13 <dansmith> agree with gibi and bauzas
16:13:21 <gmann> gibi: ok, sure. spec less BP right as it is continue of old spec
16:13:21 <bauzas> deprecated means that we support regression bugfixes but we don't provide new features
16:13:32 <bauzas> but here, it's policy things
16:13:42 <gmann> yeah
16:13:52 <gibi> gmann: yes, it does not need a separate spec, just link to the old one
16:13:57 <gmann> ok, thanks
16:14:24 <gmann> that's all from my side on API today
16:14:33 <gibi> gmann: thanks
16:14:41 <gibi> Libvirt (bauzas)
16:14:45 <bauzas> well
16:14:52 <bauzas> we're slowing starting to organize ourselves
16:15:00 <bauzas> aarents reported 2 bugs that are reviewed
16:15:09 <bauzas> another one is being reviewed as well
16:15:13 <bauzas> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-libvirt-subteam
16:15:46 <bauzas> no other business to mention except maybe kashyap's q35 strategy but he's not around
16:15:49 <bauzas> that's it
16:16:00 * bauzas just needs to do his homework on the review side
16:16:07 <gibi> bauzas: cool, thanks bauzas
16:16:10 <gibi> #topic Stuck Reviews
16:16:16 <gibi> nothing on the agenda
16:16:27 <gibi> is there anything stuck that we need to discuss today?
16:17:27 <gibi> #topic Open discussion
16:17:34 <gibi> Specless blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/six-removal (takashin)
16:17:44 <gibi> Is there any objection approving it ?
16:17:58 <bauzas> ahem
16:18:15 <bauzas> this would make sense to work on this now that we only support py3
16:18:26 <gmann> +1
16:18:33 <bauzas> this being said, it's a pain to both work on it and review such large changes
16:19:04 <bauzas> in the past, we discussed those kind of 'nice-to-have' large series during the PTGs so that the whole nova core team would agree on this
16:19:16 <bauzas> six isn't mock
16:19:25 <artom> It's boring work, but is it really hard?
16:19:43 <bauzas> and I'm afraid we could generate some bugs during reviews that would appear trivial
16:20:06 <bauzas> so at least we need to come up with a consensus
16:20:09 <dansmith> my major complaint is that it generates churn, conflicts, and backport annoyance
16:20:20 <bauzas> dansmith: that's my point
16:20:23 <dansmith> for no actual gain
16:20:45 <gmann> backport anyways needs to be anyways py2 compatible during backporting
16:20:54 <bauzas> it's a major source of frustration for both the owner and the reviewers
16:21:03 <gmann> mean for new changes we anyways will not support six right
16:21:08 <bauzas> for the owner, that will mean a constant rebase
16:21:30 <bauzas> for the reviewers, that will mean some code reviews that aren't honestly trivial
16:22:08 <bauzas> gmann: dansmith was referring to any backport from a py3-only file
16:22:20 <dansmith> mox removal was basically in the same camp, except it was limited to tests, and also had the goal of getting us off a technically unsupported library (even though it has never been a problem)
16:22:21 <bauzas> not the fact we would start changing ussuri or what other release
16:22:26 <dansmith> this is conflicts everywhere
16:22:36 <bauzas> dansmith: I exacly had mox in mind
16:22:56 <bauzas> I'm not opposed to the work
16:23:07 <gmann> yeah py3-only file backport can be conflict things
16:23:13 <bauzas> but I just feel it's a massive effort for zero gain
16:23:17 <artom> dansmith, so when would you propose we remove it, if ever? When Ussuri is the oldest supported stable branch, so that we know backports don't have to care about Py2
16:23:18 <artom> ?
16:23:35 <dansmith> IMHO, this is a mental cleanliness ticky mark that is a bunch of work t make us feel better, for no gain. But I'm quite sure it'll just happen anyway
16:23:56 <bauzas> artom: I honestly feel nobody thought about backports when we started writing py3 only code
16:24:10 <dansmith> artom: if it were me I would spend no time on it pretty much ever, but waiting until py2 releases are out of support is at least something
16:24:20 <dansmith> just letting it die by attrition would be fine with me
16:24:34 <bauzas> honestly, tox is a wrapper
16:24:42 <bauzas> whoops
16:24:49 * bauzas facepalms
16:24:50 <gmann> bauzas: that is why (due to backport) these cleanup was not part of py-2 drop goal.
16:25:06 <gibi> OK I don't see a consensus to approve the bp. I will not this down in the bp linking back to this discussion.
16:25:13 <gibi> I will note*
16:25:29 <bauzas> gibi: maybe having takashi around when we discuss it could be nice
16:25:32 <bauzas> hence a PTG thing
16:26:02 <bauzas> b/c I'm not sure he's full onboard with what it means in terms of patches carry over
16:26:03 <gibi> bauzas: sure
16:26:32 <bauzas> but agreed with dansmith, letting it die by attrition sounds good to me
16:26:37 <gibi> I'm OK to discuss it on the PTG or in a separate ML thread stared by takashi
16:26:41 <bauzas> six isn't exactly large
16:27:23 <dansmith> it's also not like mox where the whole *approach* to the code has to be different
16:27:41 <dansmith> thus it's just a little syntactic sugar in places
16:27:46 <bauzas> yup
16:27:53 <bauzas> again, just a wrapper
16:28:39 <bauzas> I was personnally offering to discuss this at PTG time because I do care of stable branches
16:29:07 <bauzas> and I don't want us to be too much py3-only pedantic on ussuri and later branches if that goes starting to be backported
16:29:24 <bauzas> somehow continuing to use six would have my favor :)
16:29:24 <dansmith> are we done?
16:29:33 <gibi> done
16:29:38 <gibi> nothing more on the agenda
16:29:42 <bauzas> I think so, was thinking out loud
16:29:43 <gibi> is there anyithing else to discuss?
16:30:47 <gibi> then thank you all for being here! For EU it is beertime!
16:30:50 <gibi> #endmeeting