15:00:04 <noonedeadpunk> #startmeeting openstack_ansible_meeting
15:00:04 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Feb 28 15:00:04 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is noonedeadpunk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:04 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:04 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible_meeting'
15:00:10 <noonedeadpunk> #topic rollcall
15:00:11 <noonedeadpunk> o/
15:00:49 <jrosser> o/ hello
15:02:51 <noonedeadpunk> #topic office hours
15:04:16 <noonedeadpunk> I don't have much this time. I've started looking into quorum queues and by far found that plugins repo does not test actual code. Repo is in required-projects but likely we don't install collection from zuul path for some reason
15:04:45 <noonedeadpunk> jrosser: I know you've proposed patch to change approach there a bit but it failed as well - I didn't have time to check what went wrong there
15:05:23 <noonedeadpunk> will have some deeper look during the week
15:05:26 <jrosser> i've not had time to look either
15:05:47 <noonedeadpunk> Also I've spawned 3VMs aio to play with haproxy patches, but haven't started playing much
15:06:37 <noonedeadpunk> We've breifly discussed yestarday where it's worth to pay attention - like handler dynamic naming and virtual groups
15:07:46 <noonedeadpunk> It's also absolutely worth splitting changes of haproxy_services format and adoption for splitting configs into 2 patches
15:08:58 <noonedeadpunk> As of now I tried sandbox without LE, and it seems like approach overall working. The only thing that came to my mind - it will be way trickier to expand pool of haproxies or add some new host
15:09:23 <noonedeadpunk> as basically you'll need to run setup-everything. Might be not a big deal given documentation and working tags though
15:16:29 <noonedeadpunk> I've also tried bumping mariadb version to 10.11 and it obviously didn't "just worked" as package names seems to have changed.
15:17:05 <noonedeadpunk> And now it seems to be aligned with distro names ie not having major version at the end
15:18:39 <noonedeadpunk> It seems they've stopped doing that since 10.8. So some work is needed there for sure
15:20:18 <noonedeadpunk> I also need these 2 features to inventory land or have some decent alternative to them for 2023.1
15:20:25 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/870113
15:20:27 <noonedeadpunk> #link  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/869762
15:20:55 <noonedeadpunk> As we rely on them as of today in concept deployment
15:21:16 <noonedeadpunk> (which should become prod by summer)
15:22:53 <noonedeadpunk> Another possibly sad topic is uwsgi. I assume some might have read MLs regarding this. In short uwsgi is in maintenance only as of today (and for the last year)
15:28:17 <noonedeadpunk> There're discussions ongoing on what should we all do with regards to that and if there should be some tested by default wsgi backend
15:28:35 <noonedeadpunk> Or at very least I'd love that this was a thing ^
15:32:30 <jamesdenton_> o/
15:32:46 <noonedeadpunk> I was thinking that at worst it might be worth renaming uwsgi role to jsut wsgi and have an option to setup gunicorn as well
15:35:12 <jrosser> sorry also in another meeting right now
15:35:22 <noonedeadpunk> no worries
15:37:17 <noonedeadpunk> I think that's kind of it from my side. I don't think we have any new bugs to discuss
15:37:41 <noonedeadpunk> But reviews on stable branches backports are super welcome to get new releases
15:41:09 <jrosser> i will also try to look at the haproxy stuff
15:41:20 <jrosser> i'd like to try the add_host approach
15:45:22 <noonedeadpunk> So basically get rid of delegate_to approach?
15:47:08 <noonedeadpunk> The thing I'm concerned about, is that with dynamic group, when adding haproxy hosts to glance_api, for example, it will result in placing template on hosts that are not intended for that. But maybe indeed there's a way for that
15:47:42 <noonedeadpunk> I was trying to focus on handlers thing now as it's quite annoying as well.
15:48:54 <noonedeadpunk> at least concept overall is working from what I can tell.
15:54:20 <jrosser> i was hoping that `add_host` would let you do new_group = haproxy_all hosts [also member of glance_all]
15:54:43 <jrosser> then be able to run against `new_group` which would just be haproxy_all hosts but also with glance vars
16:03:03 <noonedeadpunk> well, then role will run against all hosts in this new group, isn't it?
16:03:50 <noonedeadpunk> So it will deploy haproxy.conf on both haproxy_all and glance_all
16:05:06 <jrosser> i don't know - i need to make some quick test playbook to see
16:06:35 <noonedeadpunk> Maybe, if add haproxy_all to glance_all temporary instead of new_group and run against haproxy_all will do the trick... But it kind of depends in glance_all is group that consist of children or not...
16:06:55 <noonedeadpunk> but yeah, worth checking this for sure
16:06:58 <noonedeadpunk> #endmeeting