16:00:05 <bauzas> #startmeeting nova
16:00:05 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Jul 27 16:00:05 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is bauzas. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:05 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:05 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
16:00:31 <stephenfin> o/
16:00:39 <bauzas> howdy folks I'll be your chair for this meeting given our Supreme Leader is on vacations
16:00:50 <bauzas> \o
16:00:53 <sean-k-mooney> o/
16:01:21 <bauzas> awesome, one more people from the last meeting I chaired \o/
16:01:46 <bauzas> agenda is up at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova
16:01:58 <elodilles> o/
16:02:27 <bauzas> feel free to add items you wanna discuss in the last section above ^
16:02:31 <bauzas> moving on now
16:02:33 <bauzas> #topic Bugs (stuck/critical)
16:02:41 <bauzas> No Critical bugs
16:02:48 <bauzas> #link 11 new untriaged bugs (+1 since the last meeting): #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New
16:02:58 <bauzas> I'll try to look at some of them tomorrow
16:03:14 <bauzas> any other bugs people wanna raise ?
16:03:46 <stephenfin> nope, we had a gate issue due to Sphinx 4.x but sean-k-mooney fixed that for us
16:04:11 <bauzas> we could have had a cinderclient bug, but the v3 change is now merged, right?
16:04:22 <bauzas> stephenfin: excellent, thanks sean-k-mooney
16:04:22 <sean-k-mooney> ya i think that is merged now
16:04:28 <stephenfin> Yes, the nova one landed last week and the novaclient one went in earlier today
16:04:41 <bauzas> oki doki
16:04:58 <sean-k-mooney> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/802334
16:04:59 <bauzas> were we limiting the cinderclient version ?
16:05:02 <sean-k-mooney> that was the nova one
16:05:15 <sean-k-mooney> bauzas: no we jsut had a refernce to v2
16:05:22 <bauzas> ok
16:05:28 <sean-k-mooney> replced it with v3
16:05:28 <bauzas> anyway, moving
16:05:40 <bauzas> #topic Gate status
16:05:46 <bauzas> Nova gate bugs #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=gate-failure
16:06:33 <bauzas> #topic Gate status
16:07:02 <bauzas> meh, maybe the meetbot works with the #topic section
16:07:03 <bauzas> anyway
16:07:14 <bauzas> nothing to say about any gate issue ?
16:07:40 <stephenfin> nope, not beyond the above
16:07:42 <bauzas> I can see a new one from lyarwood https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1938021
16:08:13 <sean-k-mooney> we are still using the tempoary workaround for the ovsdb issue. ill try and find out how the ovs change is comming before m3 but no other update on that
16:08:45 <sean-k-mooney> hum interesting
16:08:52 <melwitt> I have noticed while working on placement consumer types that a generation conflict gets hit on my patches, let me find the (old) gate bug
16:08:53 <sean-k-mooney> was tehre a new olo release
16:09:24 <bauzas> sean-k-mooney: good question
16:09:37 <melwitt> this one http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1836754
16:10:20 <sean-k-mooney> bauzas: the messging issue might be related to something moving and we are nolonger mocking properly in the func tests
16:10:43 <bauzas> melwitt: heh, who is working on this one ?
16:10:46 <melwitt> it occurs in general too but while working on placement to do more during a PUT it makes it happen a lot more. so a heads up that I think we'll need to address that before placement consumer types will be usable
16:10:48 <sean-k-mooney> although perhaps not it is corectly using the fake implementation.
16:11:09 <bauzas> melwitt: oh it's you
16:11:21 <sean-k-mooney> huh i could see that conflict happening alright
16:11:39 <melwitt> bauzas: I have restored mriedem's old patch about the bug and will add tests to it for review
16:11:47 <bauzas> do we have race conditions for this a lot ? (the conflict)
16:11:55 <melwitt> yeah, it was originallly from tssurya and cdent but both moved off of openstack before it was finished so I've been working on finishing it
16:12:06 <bauzas> or is it just for a few job runs ?
16:12:37 <melwitt> bauzas: I have seen it on other patches yes, but not nearly as often as I do on the placement patches. on the placement patches it looks pretty much guaranteed
16:12:46 <sean-k-mooney> well im not sure the frequency matteers with the scale we run at its goign to block patches at least temporaly and require a recheck
16:13:22 <sean-k-mooney> so i think we should try an fix it sooner rather then later
16:13:32 <bauzas> melwitt: so we get a conflict when deleting the allocation but why are we getting an exception ?
16:13:50 <bauzas> the allocation should just be orphaned, that's it
16:13:53 <melwitt> just wanted to give everyone a heads up about it because back when the fix was proposed, it there was a lot of discussion on the review. so if anyone has concerns about DELETE for most allocations cases rather than PUT, comment on the review
16:14:10 <bauzas> melwitt: sure, will review your change if you want
16:14:14 <melwitt> because it was changed to a PUT instead of a DELETE when consumer generations were added
16:14:21 <bauzas> ah shit, I see
16:14:34 <melwitt> it's mriedem's change that I'm going to complete
16:14:37 <bauzas> melwitt: thanks for working on it either way
16:14:57 <sean-k-mooney> melwitt: wait deleting an allocation was chgange to a put?
16:15:35 <sean-k-mooney> because what delete dont have a body and we did not want to include the consomer generation in the query arg?
16:15:38 <bauzas> sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/688802/2/nova/scheduler/client/report.py#b2107
16:15:38 <melwitt> here's the review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/688802
16:15:40 <melwitt> sean-k-mooney: yes, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/591597
16:15:47 <melwitt> sean-k-mooney: I don't know, tbh
16:15:51 <bauzas> sean-k-mooney: we now call put()
16:16:02 <sean-k-mooney> well that by itself is a bug
16:16:13 <melwitt> I tend to agree
16:16:21 <sean-k-mooney> we should not use put for delete and im not convince we need to even include the generation version
16:16:44 <bauzas> let's discuss this after the meeting, if people want
16:16:53 <sean-k-mooney> sure
16:16:56 <bauzas> but I tend to agree too
16:17:08 <bauzas> I need to understand the *why* for put
16:17:18 <bauzas> so looking at the original change
16:17:23 <bauzas> anyway
16:17:24 <bauzas> moving on
16:17:36 <bauzas> Placement periodic job status #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?project=openstack%2Fplacement&pipeline=periodic-weekly
16:17:40 <melwitt> the only thing you get with PUT is if you issue a delete of your instance, if someone else updates it while it's deleting, you have a chance to reconsider your decision to delete it. afaik that might be the reasoning
16:18:06 <bauzas> melwitt: yeah, that's what I think too
16:18:12 <bauzas> for a race
16:18:16 <bauzas> anyway
16:18:26 <melwitt> yeah sorry, can move on
16:18:28 <bauzas> about the placement periodic job, well, we merged stuff
16:18:31 <sean-k-mooney> ya that is what i assuem too but i dont think that is the right design choice if we delete it we shoudl just delete it
16:18:31 <bauzas> last week
16:18:40 <bauzas> now the job looks to work
16:18:51 <bauzas> (we merged a now o-r-c)
16:18:59 <bauzas> *version
16:19:02 <sean-k-mooney> o-r-c
16:19:06 <sean-k-mooney> ??
16:19:20 <sean-k-mooney> oh os-resouce-classes
16:19:26 <sean-k-mooney> yes
16:20:14 <sean-k-mooney> placment was updated to account for the new os-resource-class release
16:20:26 <bauzas> yeah, sorry was triying to find the patch
16:20:37 <bauzas> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/796595
16:20:52 <bauzas> anyway, nothing to tell more
16:21:13 <sean-k-mooney> one thing we might want to consider it preparing the patch when we are preparing the release
16:21:35 <bauzas> except maybe https://zuul.openstack.org/build/0e135bb912b240c8bc2aa96049727a1a
16:21:56 <sean-k-mooney> we know we have to do this every time we release it so we can prementivly submit the placment patch with a depens on the releases repo patch
16:21:56 <bauzas> oh nevermind, was fixed by the above
16:22:14 <bauzas> sean-k-mooney: you mean the placement release patch ?
16:22:19 <sean-k-mooney> yep
16:22:28 <bauzas> for m-3 ?
16:22:34 <sean-k-mooney> yes
16:22:40 <sean-k-mooney> well
16:22:48 <sean-k-mooney> when we go to release o-r-c again
16:23:00 <sean-k-mooney> we can prepare a patch to placment for it
16:23:23 <sean-k-mooney> to update the canary test and have it ready to go by depending on the pathch to the release repo
16:23:32 <bauzas> well, generally this is made by the release mgmt team but we can surely prepare it
16:23:36 <sean-k-mooney> im not sure if we will have anothger o-r-c release at m3
16:24:00 <sean-k-mooney> they will open the patch if we dont but they ask the ptl to approve
16:24:32 <sean-k-mooney> so at that point we can just do the house keeping patch for placnement and preappove ti so it will merge wehen the release patch does
16:24:45 <bauzas> they ask either the release folk or the PTL, yup :)
16:24:58 <sean-k-mooney> anyway we can move on just a tought
16:25:20 <bauzas> sean-k-mooney: keep your thought for next week when we get our ptl back
16:25:32 <bauzas> moving on
16:25:34 <bauzas> time is flying
16:25:49 <bauzas> Please look at the gate failures, file a bug, and add an elastic-recheck  signature in the opendev/elastic-recheck repo (example: #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/759967)
16:25:56 <bauzas> #topic Release Planning
16:26:02 <bauzas> We past M2 and spec freeze. M3 is in 5 weeks.
16:26:10 <bauzas> We have 21 approved an open blueprints and we have 5 weeks to finish  them. Please focus review effort on bps in Needs Code Review state.
16:26:29 <bauzas> that reminds me, people have to make sure their blueprint is on Needs Code Review
16:26:51 <bauzas> #link https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/xena-3
16:27:35 <bauzas> the delivery status doesn't really mean anything but that can help reviewers to know which series to look at
16:27:49 <bauzas> so, if you love reviews, you know what to do
16:28:19 <bauzas> Next deadline is non-client library freeze at 16th of August
16:28:43 <bauzas> think about it for os-resource-class ;)
16:28:58 <bauzas> moving on
16:29:06 <bauzas> #topic PTG Planning
16:29:14 <bauzas> PTG timeslots booked by gibi, see #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-July/023787.html
16:29:24 <bauzas> The PTG etherpad is ready to be filled with topics: #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-yoga-ptg
16:29:37 <bauzas> If you see a need for a specific cross project section then please let gibi know
16:30:22 <bauzas> I'm pretty sure this etherpad will be filled before we have the PTG :)
16:30:47 <bauzas> #topic Stable Branches
16:30:56 <bauzas> elodilles: flood is yours
16:31:01 <bauzas> floor*
16:31:06 <bauzas> (oh man)
16:31:09 <elodilles> stable gates are not blocked
16:31:10 <elodilles> :)
16:31:18 <elodilles> at least as far as I can tell
16:31:19 <bauzas> excellent, excellent :D
16:31:46 <bauzas> tbh, this is not really time of the cycle when I look at stable changes
16:31:47 <elodilles> not so much activity around stable branches (M2, M3, vacations, etc...)
16:32:16 <bauzas> yup, most of the team efforts are focused on feature delivery as we speak, I guess
16:32:18 <elodilles> bauzas: true :)
16:32:21 <bauzas> moving on
16:32:30 <bauzas> #topic Sub/related team Highlights
16:32:36 <bauzas> Libvirt (bauzas)
16:32:45 <bauzas> bauzas: floor is your
16:32:52 <bauzas> bauzas: thanks
16:32:57 <bauzas> bauzas: nothing to report, sir.
16:33:01 <bauzas> bauzas: thanks.
16:33:05 <bauzas> moving on.
16:33:25 <bauzas> #topic Open discussion
16:33:40 <bauzas> I refreshed and nothing popped in the wikipage while we were speaking
16:34:01 <bauzas> so, nothing to say on this today, unless someone wanna raise something now
16:34:35 <stephenfin> nope
16:34:41 <bauzas> (I guess my fake dialog frightened a lof of people who disappeared)
16:34:55 <bauzas> oh wow, at least someone stayed \o/
16:35:08 <bauzas> I'm not that bad actor
16:35:10 <sean-k-mooney> can we ever really leave
16:35:39 <bauzas> I could just pretend I'll keep the stick for the whole hour and prevent you to use this channel for the last 25 mins
16:35:41 <sean-k-mooney> i dont have anything more for today
16:35:51 <bauzas> privilege of the power, whahahah
16:36:39 <bauzas> but, heh,
16:36:42 <bauzas> #stopmeeting
16:36:53 <bauzas> #endmeeting