16:00:00 #startmeeting openstack_ansible_meeting 16:00:01 Meeting started Thu Mar 2 16:00:00 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mhayden. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:03 o/ 16:00:05 The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible_meeting' 16:00:08 right at 16:00 16:00:10 such joy 16:00:14 #topic Roll Call 16:00:21 o/ 16:00:23 o/ 16:01:15 o/ 16:01:20 you are the best at timing mhayden 16:01:36 +1 16:01:59 o/ 16:02:03 o/ 16:02:21 o/ 16:02:42 o/ 16:03:03 o/ 16:03:15 * mhayden waits 'til 16:05 16:03:17 \o/ 16:05:12 okay, let's get rolling 16:05:24 last week was the PTG, so there were no action items ;) 16:05:34 o/ 16:05:35 #topic Operations Guide Review - asettle 16:05:41 * mhayden hands it over to asettle 16:05:43 Hey dueds 16:05:47 ... a new version of dudes 16:05:51 sup dued 16:05:52 Well, first up 16:06:01 THanks for those that helped out reviewing the guide at the PTG - solid effort 16:06:14 Secondly - there's something I should have made clear during that effort 16:06:37 Anything that isn't *specific* OSA config and operations content - remove it. But don't delete - we'll move this to docs.o.o 16:07:01 Has anyone been able to see if anyone can help contribute? 16:07:10 I know evrardjp has offered to write a section (thanks man!) 16:07:24 i think i signed up for a section too 16:07:40 woot 16:08:01 all the cool kids are signing up for ops guide sections these days... you should all try it 16:08:07 hah 16:08:21 asettle: got a link to the remaining work? 16:08:27 a new one? 16:08:29 uno momento 16:08:49 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAnsible#Documentation_planning 16:08:58 if all the cool kids are doing it, I'm out. 16:09:13 andymccr: could you put it in the table plz? :) 16:09:18 evrardjp: you were one of the cool kids 16:09:20 Just so we can track what needs to be done 16:09:26 andymccr: that's great! 16:09:31 I appreciate you're not all operators, but, you have that knowledge :) 16:09:32 So, yay 16:09:32 #hasbeenalready 16:09:33 asettle: im in the table bottom section! 16:09:36 what's the difference between removing and deleting? 16:09:40 andymccr: oh that guy 16:09:51 jmccrory: removing (commenting out), deleting (out of tree and out of mind) 16:09:55 hard to figure out based on my irc nick but i am infact "Andy McCrae" 16:10:01 gotcha 16:10:02 hehe 16:10:02 \o 16:10:05 sorry I'm late 16:10:11 Wow andymccr tell me more 16:10:15 I just... I feel like I don't know you very well 16:10:24 crushil: welcome! 16:10:25 crushil: nobody will every forgive you 16:10:29 ... two sides of OSA 16:10:32 ever* 16:10:35 lol 16:10:39 crushil: welcome! 16:11:00 crushil: are *you* an operator? Do you do operations? 16:11:00 o/ 16:11:01 asettle is vicious this week:) 16:11:11 spotz: it's not been a fun week :P 16:11:16 I"M SORRY ILL BE NICER 16:11:25 asettle: Don't succumb to peer pressure 16:11:37 * asettle runs around in circles 16:11:40 What do I do, what do I do 16:11:51 Pick on Nova more?:) 16:12:09 spotz: I am like, the last in a very long line of people hatin' on nova this cycle :P 16:12:11 * asettle points of andymccr 16:12:13 at* 16:12:15 Frick I just can't type 16:12:19 mhayden: we are done with the ops update :P 16:12:24 woot! 16:12:45 If you couldn't tell...:) 16:12:49 #topic Python project for inventory code - palendae 16:12:51 * mhayden hands it to palendae 16:13:31 asettle, not really. I was an operator in my previous life. Trying to be part of a contributor in multiple projects including OSA 16:13:42 There's a review up at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/418076/ to move the inventory code into a Python package. Would appreciate input on naming. stevelle already provided some feedback 16:14:22 My main concern with naming it - it may grow to have more than inventory stuff in it, so I'd opt for not referencing only inventory 16:14:29 (and yes, I will fix the merge conflict today) 16:14:39 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/418076/ 16:14:43 And that's all I have 16:15:04 crushil: that's alllll I need ;) 16:15:08 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAnsible#Documentation_planning 16:15:11 sorry palendae 16:15:16 palendae: so the aim is to review that PR once its unmergeconflicted 16:15:35 andymccr: That and provide names...maybe I should set up a place to vote separately 16:15:59 palendae: ok cool 16:16:30 palendae: so we'd have to move that out into a separate repo (once it's named) i assume? 16:16:35 palendae do we intend to move it out into its own repo to become a library? 16:16:45 I don't intend to move it yet, no 16:16:58 You can have more than one package in a repo; glance already does this 16:18:07 palendae: i guess once the bits are there we can figure out the details afterwards? 16:18:14 Yeah 16:18:24 sounds good to me. 16:18:27 They don't strictly need to exist in a separate repo to be a pip-installable package 16:18:43 So we can get something installable for now and I guess if people really want more repos we can 16:19:06 ok cool, keeping it in-repo certaonly makes testing easier 16:19:27 yeah i think its a future looking thing, we could do at some point if/when it makes sense but for now it doesnt really make sense 16:19:34 (splitting out into its own repo) 16:19:38 and if we can do more than one package from a single repo, then there is hope for one day doing 'pip install openstack-ansible' and magic happens! 16:19:46 odyssey4me: magic already happens 16:19:54 o/ 16:19:54 odyssey4me: Right. But with a different name :p 16:20:02 No matching distribution found for openstack-ansible 16:20:05 magic! 16:20:58 ok we good on this topic? palendae mhayden? 16:21:00 pip install osa 16:21:11 should do everything for us 16:21:19 that's magic. 16:21:26 https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osa-python-package-name for voting I guess 16:21:28 * mhayden yields to palendae if we're done discussing this one 16:21:54 With that link, I think we can be :) 16:22:09 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osa-python-package-name 16:22:12 https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html 16:22:15 #action vote for a name! 16:22:24 woot 16:22:25 evrardjp: indeed 16:22:31 some voting (and trolling) already underway 16:23:07 we can probably collect a list and have a vote at next meeting? 16:23:13 unless actual votes go into the etherpad 16:23:15 sounds good 16:23:23 andymccr: Works for me 16:23:23 palendae: get something out to the ML for that if you can 16:23:29 okay, moving right along 16:23:37 #topic Release Planning & Decisions - andymccr 16:23:40 * mhayden passes it to andymccr 16:23:48 i hear there's a big release on the way 16:23:51 something about a deadline 16:23:53 you heard correctly! 16:24:06 so next week is the deadline, i'll be doing the release either tomorrow or early next week. 16:24:12 What i need from everybody is 16:24:17 1. tell me any critical blockers 16:24:29 erator for the win ! 16:24:30 imo 16:24:51 2. help review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/439691/ - which is a blocker 16:24:59 If I'm not about ping for reviews 16:25:05 jamesdenton raised some upgrade bugs which that should fix and i'd like that in for release 16:25:14 but if there are no other blockers i'll do a sha bump once that's in and release straight away 16:25:38 andymccr: Did you verify against the comment from Matt? I looked at it yesterday but wasn't sure you were going to change things again 16:26:36 spotz: yeah there is a tricky setup in that new builds vs upgrades have a different process 16:26:51 You're all approvedL) 16:26:54 which is why the patch is needed :) but yeah 16:26:55 thanks! 16:27:13 newton/mitaka releases - i need to check if it goes out this week or next 16:27:26 i'll keep with the 2 week cadence, so if we released 2 weeks ago this will be the next release week 16:27:38 again any issues or questions let me know! 16:27:51 and yeah - key thing - notify me of any blockers for the release! 16:28:30 ok all done on release update. 16:28:31 okay, good to move along? 16:28:34 mhayden: si si 16:28:46 i'm going to skip down a little 16:28:55 #topic ceph_client on 16.04 16:29:04 anyone want to speak to this item? there was no name on it 16:29:26 logan-: perhaps? 16:29:36 wasn't me 16:29:47 maybe cloudnull ? 16:29:54 i'm not sure, i'm using it and no huge issues afaik 16:29:56 I think the idea 16:30:08 was to have deployer's opinions 16:30:08 not i 16:30:27 for the ceph_client thing. There is supposed to have two links there for the meeting 16:30:54 two weeks ago this was added to the agenda due to a conversation during triage 16:30:59 let me give you the links 16:31:28 so that's the bug: 16:31:30 https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+bug/1661948 16:31:30 Launchpad bug 1661948 in openstack-ansible "ceph_client: on ubuntu 16.04 default Ceph version (hammer) causes conflicts " [Undecided,New] 16:31:32 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+bug/1661948 16:31:44 and that's our conversation 16:31:46 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-ansible/%23openstack-ansible.2017-02-07.log.html#t2017-02-07T16:15:24 16:32:02 we were waiting two weeks ago for a feedback from Travis IIRC 16:32:22 or for any other deployer 16:33:40 so do we do this in this "stable" branch ? 16:33:54 hnn 16:34:01 or 16:34:17 we just leave it as is, and wait for another input. 16:34:30 i think we need more input tbh 16:34:46 i know logan- and a few others are actively using ceph - and if we can't re-create the problem it'll be hard to fix it also 16:34:53 logan-: what's the version currently deployed? 16:35:27 also keep in mind that now we have uca everywhere, and not only "base xenial repos" 16:35:28 newton is still hammer by default I think 16:35:52 I suggest we keep it that way, and wait for more feedback. 16:36:03 oh I already said taht 16:36:13 I'm becoming a goldfish 16:36:20 UCA stuff has been rock solid, they put up a working liberasurecode1 for me in netwon-proposed if anyone needs it 16:36:23 hmm actually ceph_stable_release is not defined in newton, that's strange 16:37:13 oh it's in vars 16:37:15 yeah hammer 16:37:25 it's in vars 16:37:47 ocata+ is jewel by default, so we should see this problem less over time as we maintain the ceph version better 16:37:54 ok 16:38:13 i will bump ceph_client to the next ceph LTS in Q so we don't get behind like this again 16:38:28 if we see the bug appearing on N, we'll think of a bump of ceph version and a bump of osa version for N branch I guess :) 16:38:36 logan-: great! 16:38:52 actually pike might be best, i'm not sure, but depending on the timing of the LTS 16:39:01 If that's a periodic thing, maybe you can add that to our openstack-ansible agenda :) 16:39:16 ok 16:39:53 are we good on this topic? 16:40:04 I think so 16:40:25 yeah 16:42:12 #action logan- add ceph_client version bump to development cycle checklist 16:42:30 #link https://docs.openstack.org/developer/openstack-ansible/ocata/developer-docs/contribute.html#development-cycle-checklist 16:42:41 this way it's logged next to action :) 16:43:19 the ceph client version should be compatible with older release no ? 16:43:21 okay, movin' along 16:43:35 #topic Bugs needing attention - evrardjp 16:43:40 mgariepy: that's a good point 16:43:43 evrardjp: anything pressing this week in bug land? 16:43:43 oh ok 16:43:50 yes 16:43:56 We have 2 Critical bugs: 16:44:07 Very slow Xenial gate jobs and Rebuilding keystone[0] container breaks credential keys 16:44:22 the first one is sitting for a while, and the second need some love I guess 16:44:28 i'd also like to add this one as a key bug: 16:44:29 https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+bug/1667103 16:44:29 Launchpad bug 1667103 in openstack-ansible "Error upgrading MariaDB during N->O upgrade" [High,Confirmed] 16:44:46 for the keystone bug, I plan to have a patch up tomorrow and it will need backports and added to releases asap 16:44:52 slow xenial jobs are a PITA for sure 16:44:54 I was planning to go to high bugs later, but that's fine 16:45:06 we have 4 high level bugs 16:45:08 canonical is still working on the xenial perf problems 16:45:23 I think these bugs need either work, or re-classification 16:45:44 logan-: if its up tomorrow we can perhaps wait for that before releasing? 16:46:16 I'd be enclined to wait for the critical to merge before releasing 16:46:20 yep 16:46:25 although i guess that impacts other releases so i wouldnt say its a release blocker atm 16:47:47 yeah i wouldn't say it is a blocker but it is something we should get in asap if the fix is accepted quickly 16:47:54 logan-: agreed 16:48:02 it's not a blocker by itself but it definitely decrease our deployer experience and we may look bad if things are broken are passed into a tag 16:48:21 so the faster the fix with a tag, the better, IMO 16:48:25 it seems it impacts mostly on newton when you would do the OS upgrade 16:48:35 but yeah agreed we need that fixed and included 16:48:39 oh ok 16:48:43 thanks for clarificaiton 16:49:02 I think that's all I wanted to say, bugs need more love :) 16:50:22 alrighty 16:50:26 #topic Open Floor 16:50:33 we have ~ 9 minutes 16:50:43 started notes on newton-xenial upgrade here https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osa-newton-xenial-upgrade 16:50:51 still need to add computes and do more testing 16:50:57 thanks jmccrory! 16:51:00 but anyone else that's tried and has input, feel free to add to the page 16:51:25 and move to docs whenever it's looking reasonable 16:52:01 jmccrory: sounds good 16:52:17 logan- was going to be adding some notes anyway perhaps collab on that etherpad would be good 16:52:17 I think the "fresh install of xenial" is really important, ask mhayden :D 16:53:01 trusty -> xenial upgrades are TURRIBLE for me so far 16:53:13 yep, ubuntu's script has been finicky 16:53:33 mhayden: could you add your comments on point 5 on the etherpad? 16:53:39 :) 16:53:42 can do 16:54:14 cool thanks 16:54:53 okay, going to close this up unless there's anything else 16:55:20 all good this side 16:58:24 yup 16:58:27 thanks everyone! 16:59:04 #endmeeting