20:00:03 <johnsom> #startmeeting Octavia
20:00:04 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr  4 20:00:03 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is johnsom. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:05 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:00:07 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'octavia'
20:00:11 <johnsom> Hi folks
20:00:18 <cgoncalves> hi
20:00:35 <johnsom> #topic Announcements
20:00:42 <johnsom> Check your e-mail for a foundation survey about the PTGs
20:01:01 <nmagnezi> o/
20:01:28 <johnsom> The foundation sent out a survey about the PTGs that I know some of us are happy to give feedback. So check your e-mail in case you missed your link to the survey
20:01:46 <johnsom> Also of note, The "S" release will be "Stein"
20:01:49 <xgerman_> o/
20:02:02 <johnsom> Solar won the vote, but had a legal conflict, so Stein it is...
20:02:40 <johnsom> I have a number of other OpenStack activity type things later on the agenda, but other than those any announcements I missed?
20:03:00 <johnsom> Rocky MS-1 is in two weeks
20:03:38 <johnsom> #topic Brief progress reports / bugs needing review
20:05:09 <johnsom> Ok, moving on. It's been a busy bit for me.  I did another spin of the tempest plugin, got more feedback I hope I can address today. After that I started on the provider driver work.  I have a base class and a noop driver up for review (marked WIP as I am still making some adjustments, but feedback is still welcome).
20:06:13 <johnsom> Lots-O-reviews too.  Reviewed a bunch of great dashboard stuff (L7 support!) (sorry it took this long to get some reviews on it) and some other recent patches with new features for Rocky.
20:06:22 <johnsom> Anyone else have updates?
20:06:32 <johnsom> Spring break vacations?
20:06:56 <rm_work> I have a couple of things up still
20:07:07 <rm_work> i think maybe timeouts will merge soon? but, Usage API could use some attention
20:07:16 <rm_work> not sure everyone is aware of the work i'm trying to do there
20:07:17 <cgoncalves> rm_work: you couldn't help yourself :D
20:07:29 <rm_work> but would like to get people's general approval on the concept and how it's organized
20:07:51 <johnsom> This is an open comment section for everyone to share what they are working on with the team
20:07:56 <rm_work> cgoncalves: usually that's true ;)
20:07:57 <cgoncalves> johnsom: thanks a lot (!) for the work on tempest and providers. really looking forward to having them merged
20:08:59 <eandersson> rm_work, sup?
20:09:05 <johnsom> There is still a bunch of work to do on tempest, so if we have volunteers...
20:09:08 <rm_work> eandersson: lol
20:09:23 <eandersson> :D
20:09:25 <johnsom> How is the grenade gate going BTW?
20:09:27 <rm_work> eandersson: wanted you to review something, maybe it's fine now
20:10:02 <eandersson> I c - let me know =]
20:10:17 <cgoncalves> johnsom: no updates from my side. I know you reviewed it. I've been busy with finalizing octavia integration in tripleo and containerizing neutron-lbaas
20:10:31 <cgoncalves> plus kolla
20:10:35 <johnsom> Ok, looking forward to that too!
20:10:49 <nmagnezi> we are getting there :-)
20:11:03 <johnsom> I would love to be able to declare an upgrade tag in Rocky
20:11:28 <johnsom> Maybe even two....
20:11:34 <johnsom> #topic Other OpenStack activities of note
20:12:14 <johnsom> These are just some things going on in the wider OpenStack I think you all might want to know about. Sorry if it's duplicate from the dev mailing list (let me know if this is of value or not).
20:12:22 <johnsom> No more stable Phases welcome Extended Maintenance
20:12:30 <johnsom> #link https://review.openstack.org/548916
20:12:35 <cgoncalves> johnsom: first 2 upgradability tags are achievable with grenade as-is, I think
20:12:38 <johnsom> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552733/
20:12:58 <johnsom> cgoncalves I think there  is still a bug or two there, thus the comments
20:13:05 <johnsom> But close!
20:14:01 <johnsom> Based on packager feedback at the PTG and other forums, there is a change in how stable branches are going to be handled. It is still up for review if you want to comment.
20:14:20 <johnsom> A quick note on recent IRC trolling/vandalism
20:14:27 <johnsom> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-April/129024.html
20:14:45 <johnsom> Just an FYI that work is being done to try to help with the IRC spammers
20:14:58 <johnsom> a plan to stop syncing requirements into projects
20:15:05 <johnsom> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128352.html
20:15:47 <johnsom> The way global requirements are handled is changing.  You have probably seen the lower constraint gates, but you will see less proposal bot GR updates.
20:16:22 <johnsom> And finally, there are some upstream package changes coming we should be aware of in case they break things.
20:16:47 <johnsom> Pip and PBR are both doing major releases in the next few weeks.
20:17:00 <johnsom> Replacing pbr's autodoc feature with sphinxcontrib-apidoc
20:17:07 <johnsom> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-April/128986.html
20:17:20 <rm_work> oh yeah, pip10 is a big one right?
20:17:36 <johnsom> We probably need to investigate that work to update our docs gates.  Looking for volunteers there too.
20:18:37 <johnsom> Yeah, the big pip 10 is out in like beta/rc or something. It bit the ansible project since they were pulling from git.  It will hit the rest of us in a week or two I think. There have been some mailing list threads on that to.
20:19:06 <johnsom> Even one of the pip 9 dot releases broke the Ryu project and neutron-agents alread
20:19:08 <johnsom> y
20:19:32 <johnsom> So, FYIs. It might get bumpy here soon.
20:19:47 <cgoncalves> can we, if makes sense at all, to add non-voting/experimental pip10 jobs?
20:20:44 <johnsom> Probably, yes. If someone has cycles to do that.  I think infra/qa is working on some experimental gates to see what is coming.
20:22:40 <johnsom> Sadly I don't think I can carve off that time right now. But would support others
20:22:42 <johnsom> #topic Octavia deleted status vs. 404
20:22:44 <cgoncalves> I'm not up to speed on pip10 or have much time this week, but would try next week if not too late
20:23:42 <johnsom> Ok, sure. I think the plan is to land it the week of the 14th. So, you can help with cleanup... grin  Maybe we will be fine. I just wanted to give a heads up of places to look in case things break.
20:24:11 <johnsom> I know we don't import pip modules, so we are ahead of the game there!
20:24:29 <johnsom> Ok, 404 carry over from the last few meetings.
20:24:34 <johnsom> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/545493/
20:24:47 <johnsom> This is still open
20:25:11 <johnsom> argh, looks like it has a gate issue.
20:25:24 <johnsom> Any other updates about the libraries or other comments on this?
20:26:02 <johnsom> Though that failure, only 8 minutes it, must be a devstack failure. Our code wouldn't be running yet.
20:27:03 <johnsom> Ok, moving on then.
20:27:14 <johnsom> #topic Open Discussion
20:27:21 <johnsom> Other topics for today?
20:27:30 <nmagnezi> one small topic we started last week
20:27:41 <nmagnezi> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/storyboard-issues
20:27:56 <johnsom> Right!
20:28:05 <nmagnezi> I plan to contact the storyboard team next week (we are in a holiday this week)
20:28:14 <johnsom> They just finished their meeting I think
20:28:24 <nmagnezi> so please, if you didn't add your stuff just yet, please do it.
20:28:39 <nmagnezi> I guess I can just ping ppl in the channel :)
20:28:45 <nmagnezi> see how that goes..
20:29:11 <johnsom> Yeah, or next week when you are back in office plan to join the meeting
20:29:47 <johnsom> I saw they either have or are in the process of moving a few more projects
20:30:35 <johnsom> Other topics today?
20:30:39 <rm_work> oh i had a thng
20:30:41 <rm_work> (a thing
20:30:45 <rm_work> *a thing
20:30:45 <rm_work> )
20:31:08 * rm_work dies
20:31:23 <johnsom> I feel like I should...
20:31:33 <rm_work> umm yeah, so
20:31:35 * johnsom revives rm_work with potion of health
20:31:43 <rm_work> thanks ^_^
20:31:59 <rm_work> pratrik brought up the concept of AZs again
20:32:14 <rm_work> (I wish they'd stick around or read scrollback so we could chat about it)
20:32:34 <rm_work> but anyway, it seems more than just GD are doing multi-az stuff in the nova scheduler
20:32:45 <rm_work> and it seems to be done in a compatible way
20:33:08 <xgerman_> yep, we should add support
20:33:11 <rm_work> so I'm wondering if I cleaned up and split out the work I did around multi-AZ / AZ-anti-affinity, if people think it would be possible to merge
20:33:11 <johnsom> So upstreaming it into nova?
20:33:23 <johnsom> grin
20:33:26 <rm_work> the reason i didn't do this in the past is that enabling it requires custom nova patches
20:33:26 <rm_work> lol
20:33:26 <cgoncalves> GD?
20:33:30 <rm_work> GoDaddy
20:33:55 <rm_work> I would love to get nova to properly support this but i think that may be a losing battle that would stretch over multiple years
20:34:04 <xgerman_> mmh, can’t we just make it so that you cna supply a list of AZ when you create an LB and we out them there
20:34:18 <rm_work> so what i'm talking about is octavia support, assuming people use approximately the same compatible custom nova scheduler stuff
20:34:38 <xgerman_> mmh, how would we test that in the gate?
20:34:45 <rm_work> that is a good question
20:34:57 <rm_work> i guess that might be the closest to a firm answer, actually
20:35:05 <johnsom> Yeah, and AZs would be octavia driver specific...
20:35:05 <rm_work> until it's gate testable, it'd be hard to run it
20:35:14 <rm_work> yes, that also
20:35:20 <rm_work> it'd be specific to the amphora driver
20:35:20 <xgerman_> well, as I said we could introduce an AZ parameter when you create an LB
20:35:26 <rm_work> *amphora provider
20:35:35 <johnsom> I'm open to the idea for sure, it make sense in some cases.
20:35:37 <xgerman_> instead of having obe per installation
20:36:08 <rm_work> xgerman_: the sort of thing i do now is to have octavia transparently support multi-az, and handle anti-affinity transparently
20:36:19 <rm_work> the user shouldn't need to know anything about this
20:36:41 <johnsom> I just worry about putting a bunch of code in to become a nova scheduler, that each implementation wants to do a different way (some have cross AZ subnets, some don't, etc.).
20:36:54 <rm_work> right, the other complication is networking
20:37:02 <johnsom> I mean our dream would be nova server groups that are AZ aware (I think)
20:37:06 <rm_work> yes
20:37:14 <rm_work> so, i honestly don't care that much
20:37:17 <xgerman_> and the network spanning AZs
20:37:37 <xgerman_> or we cop out and tell them to use kosmos
20:37:41 <rm_work> but we got some interest
20:37:47 <rm_work> and i have the code ready
20:37:55 <rm_work> it just needs to be split out from my monolith patch
20:38:09 <rm_work> this is a preliminary query about whether it's worth my time
20:38:45 <johnsom> Right. So, I guess since you know what code you have, is it small enough, simple enough, and configuration enabled that we could add it, but at the operator's own risk enable it?
20:39:06 <xgerman_> yep, like “unstable”
20:39:55 <johnsom> I'm not a fan of adding it to the API for users to enter AZs, I think that gets a bit too driver specific / how does a user know the right answer?
20:40:14 <johnsom> But something via flavors or config...
20:41:54 <johnsom> netsplit?
20:42:05 <xgerman_> approval
20:42:09 <johnsom> It got quiet
20:42:23 <xgerman_> we need flavors for so many things - someone ought to write the code for it
20:42:34 <johnsom> Ha, trying.....
20:42:57 <rm_work> yeah so
20:42:59 <johnsom> Well, to be fair, there are parts of it in a patch already. I'm just adding the glue
20:43:02 <rm_work> that would essentially be it
20:43:08 <cgoncalves> rm_work: have you probed the nova team about such feature? others may also want that, you never know
20:43:29 <rm_work> just an "experimental feature" that can be enabled by using config a certain way
20:43:46 <rm_work> may or may not be gate-able, other than making sure it doesn't break the normal paths
20:43:53 * rm_work shrugs
20:44:02 <rm_work> it would be neat to not have to carry this patch myself
20:44:03 <rm_work> but
20:44:05 <johnsom> Yeah, I think if it's not like 1000's of lines of code, lots-o-warnings, etc.
20:44:19 <rm_work> alright, i'll look at splitting it out
20:44:33 <rm_work> i think i can get that done effectively
20:44:55 <xgerman_> +1
20:45:21 <johnsom> Ok, but if we see a bunch of "add nova placement API to AZ scheduler patches" I'm going to be like...  Why isn't this just in nova....
20:45:54 <rm_work> lol
20:46:29 <johnsom> BTW, we can't really use that code from pastebin. That isn't a way that we know the code was licensed for use in OpenStack, so I am assuming we are talking about your code and patch.....
20:47:34 <johnsom> Ok, other topics today?
20:48:44 <johnsom> Ok, thanks folks!  Have a good week (vacation)
20:48:54 <johnsom> #endmeeting