15:01:49 #startmeeting oslo 15:01:49 Courtesy ping for bnemec, jungleboyj, moguimar, hberaud, kgiusti, redrobot, stephenfin, johnsom 15:01:49 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Oslo#Agenda_for_Next_Meeting 15:01:50 Meeting started Mon Jun 24 15:01:49 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is bnemec. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:51 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:01:54 The meeting name has been set to 'oslo' 15:03:12 yo 15:03:18 yo 15:03:29 o/ 15:03:33 o/ 15:04:25 o/ 15:05:42 #topic Red flags for/from liaisons 15:06:23 None from Barbican 15:06:24 o/ 15:06:29 Nothing from Cinder. 15:06:45 Last week was pretty quiet from the Oslo side too. 15:06:50 Nothing I can think of to highlight. 15:07:17 #topic Releases 15:07:29 Just a couple last week. 15:07:55 Of note is that I held off on releasing oslo.messaging since the transport options feature is only partially merged. 15:08:29 kgiusti: gsantomaggio: If you have something that needs to be released anyway we can certainly do that though. 15:08:59 I'm proceeding by steps 15:09:11 Other than that, I will take a look at the necessary releases again this week. 15:09:15 I've got nuthin' - hberaud - anything? 15:09:29 nope 15:09:43 I am waiting for approving this: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/666241/ 15:10:14 then I can add the handle the mandatory flag client side and then server side 15:10:15 gsantomaggio: I'll take a look 15:10:22 +1 15:10:25 Yep, that's what I'm waiting the release on. 15:11:00 Or maybe the actual mandatory implementation. 15:11:19 I guess the main point is that I intentionally didn't release oslo.messaging last week, but if you need a release just let me know. 15:11:26 as you prefer 15:12:23 Not entirely relevant for this section, but I went and abandoned a load of seemingly stale patches/specs this morning. Hopefully I didn't catch anything I shouldn't have in the process 15:12:49 The ones I saw looked fine. 15:13:04 I know pluggably policy is pretty much off the table at this point. 15:13:37 yep 15:13:42 It's always okay to restore an abandoned patch if you still have interest in it. 15:13:52 I even tried to help ozz on that one 15:13:54 And if you're not the owner, feel free to ping an Oslo core to do it. 15:14:26 moguimar: Yeah, based on the discussions I've had with people it sounds like that was kind of a side project that didn't end up going anywhere. 15:14:43 Doug does have a patch up to allow integration with external policy engines. 15:14:52 It's not pluggable though. 15:15:19 #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/658675/ 15:15:23 for anyone who is interested. 15:16:00 #topic Action items from last meeting 15:16:48 "bnemec reply to unicode project description thread" 15:16:50 Done 15:16:56 "bnemec update liaison documentation with new ping list details" 15:17:08 Turns out we didn't document the ping list in the liaison docs, so this was a noop 15:17:16 "bnemec retire courtesy ping script in oslo.tools" 15:17:21 Proposed. 15:17:38 > but if you need a release just let me know. 15:17:38 No I don't need a release thank you, I work always on `master` branch 15:17:38 #link https://review.opendev.org/666057 15:17:54 gsantomaggio: Sounds good. 15:17:59 "bnemec to point kafka functional test patch at apache mirror" 15:18:12 Turns out the mirrors don't include the archive content, so we couldn't do this. 15:18:32 I believe we did merge the patch to switch it to archive.a.o so we could unblock those functional tests though. 15:18:46 "Cores to review https://review.opendev.org/648727" 15:18:50 Merged openstack/oslo.tools master: Remove ping_me script https://review.opendev.org/666057 15:19:10 I took a look, but it didn't quite fix the bug entirely. 15:19:44 I should probably go -1 that since at the very least it shouldn't be marked Closes-Bug. Partial-Bug might be okay. 15:19:47 bnemec: I saw comments 15:20:29 s/I saw/I just saw/ 15:20:36 hberaud: It's possible we could merge that as an improvement and iterate on the full fix. 15:20:45 I'm not sure whether it regresses any cases that were working before. 15:20:54 bnemec: ack 15:21:05 If not, it's an improvement even if not a 100% solution. 15:21:24 I'll move from Closes to Parial 15:21:32 partial 15:21:43 Sounds good, thanks. 15:22:09 "bnemec to follow up on oslo.service reload bug" 15:22:15 Not done. Still on my todo list though. 15:22:37 I tried to test it 15:22:38 Last week ended up being a bit busy, so hopefully I'll have more time this week to do this. 15:22:47 but even master is failing tox on my machine 15:22:51 moguimar: The oslo.service patch? 15:22:55 the pbr 15:23:06 Ah 15:23:39 moguimar: What is the error? 15:23:58 The pbr unit tests _should_ be pretty stable since we fixed the wsgi issue. 15:24:21 (that was the end of action items from last week, BTW) 15:24:25 lots of testtools.matchers._impl.MismatchError: '1.2.3.dev1' does not start with '1.2.3.0a2.dev1'. 15:24:38 and some pgp failed to sign the data 15:24:50 I have to dig more into it 15:25:15 testing that review I had 13 fails 15:25:23 I'm hitting 11 on master 15:25:40 It is probably something in my machine 15:25:41 Have you tried wiping .tox? That's always my first step when I get unexpected test failures. :-) 15:26:26 I usually do a "git clean -fdX" 15:26:47 trying it right now 15:27:46 Okay, we can follow up after the meeting too. 15:28:05 I don't have any topics for this week, so we'll go straight to 15:28:05 #topic Weekly Wayward Review 15:28:28 #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/577614 15:28:35 Looks like this just got rebased. 15:28:42 It's a pretty simple change, so hopefully we can just merge it. 15:31:37 And approved. 15:31:47 I'll +2 15:31:48 One more off the review pile of shame. :-) 15:31:58 #topic Open discussion 15:32:02 lol ok 15:32:08 Anything else this week? 15:32:25 hberaud: Thanks for looking. :-) 15:33:00 if someone can take a look to => https://review.opendev.org/#/c/663074/ and https://review.opendev.org/#/c/661314/ (the eventlet heartbeat stuff) 15:34:07 hberaud: What's the status on that? Last I heard kgiusti had concerns and you said something about tpool not working the way we needed. 15:34:24 * kgiusti - re-looks... 15:35:13 bnemec: I've submit 2 solution, 1 with tpool, 1 without tpool (the current patch set) and the instructions to test it 15:35:26 (the both) 15:36:01 hberaud: Okay, thanks. Do you have a recommendation on which we should go with? 15:36:20 bnemec: yeah I propose to use the current patch set 15:36:21 bnemec: hberaud: I didn't have a technical objection - just concerned about the scope of work in general. 15:36:47 but I'm definitely interesting in this problem. 15:37:06 hberaud: Sounds good. I'll try to take a look this week. 15:37:07 bnemec: but if you want to observe the result with tpool you can us the patch set 3 to test it 15:37:21 (cf. the commit message) 15:37:21 kgiusti: Yeah, we just never really resolved that discussion that I can recall. 15:38:02 also I suppose it's better to keep the spec too 15:38:22 to keep a track of all puzzle pieces 15:38:36 bnemec: kgiusti; thoughts? 15:38:53 Given that this is technically a bug fix I don't think we _need_ a spec, but if it helps to coordinate the work then I'm fine with keeping it. 15:39:12 Just don't do it solely for the sake of more bureaucracy. :-) 15:39:40 the main of the spec part is to justify some technical choice in the doc after that => https://review.opendev.org/#/c/666863/ 15:39:55 s/the main/the main goal/ 15:40:34 hberaud: I'll spend more time reviewing what you've currently done 15:41:13 hberaud: I'll try to get that done today. 15:41:14 bnemec: yeah sure "not a bureaucracy" choice :) 15:41:26 kgiusti: thanks 15:41:59 #action kgiusti and bnemec to review rabbit heartbeat changes 15:42:08 There, now it's official. 15:42:16 :) 15:42:31 Anything else? 15:42:42 not on my side 15:43:16 neither on mine 15:43:33 nothing here ! 15:44:47 Sounds like we're done. Thanks for joining, everyone! 15:44:49 #endmeeting