16:00:44 <number80> #startmeeting RDO Meeting (2018-10-31)
16:00:44 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Oct 31 16:00:44 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is number80. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:45 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:47 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting__2018_10_31_'
16:00:51 <number80> #topic roll call
16:01:02 <amoralej> o/
16:01:09 <number80> agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/RDO-Meeting
16:01:16 <jpena> o/
16:01:20 <dciabrin> hey o/ I'll represent bandini as well
16:01:21 * number80 can't connect to ethepad btw
16:01:29 <number80> #chair amoralej jpena dciabrin
16:01:30 <openstack> Current chairs: amoralej dciabrin jpena number80
16:01:31 <number80> Thanks :)
16:01:36 <amoralej> it was failing before
16:01:43 <PagliaccisCloud> \o
16:01:43 <amoralej> it was slow
16:01:47 <hitchover> o/
16:01:47 <number80> #chair PagliaccisCloud
16:01:48 <openstack> Current chairs: PagliaccisCloud amoralej dciabrin jpena number80
16:01:54 <number80> #chair hitchover
16:01:55 <openstack> Current chairs: PagliaccisCloud amoralej dciabrin hitchover jpena number80
16:02:36 <number80> It'll be fun without having the agenda :)
16:02:50 <number80> EmilienM: around?
16:03:07 <jpena> after some time, I have access to the agenda, so I can help
16:03:35 <amoralej> yeah, i also have access
16:03:35 <number80> ack
16:03:38 <amoralej> if needed
16:03:50 <PagliaccisCloud> scrnshot - https://i.imgur.com/ddjccVJ.png
16:03:50 <number80> still loading here
16:04:00 <number80> perfect
16:04:14 <number80> let's start
16:04:44 <number80> #topic Add side repository for pacemaker with podman support
16:04:57 <dciabrin> that's my first rdo meeting so apologies for any goofs in advance :)
16:05:03 <number80> No worries :)
16:05:29 <dciabrin> so there's a need to run podman in stein, and currently pacemaker doesn't support podman in the centos 7.x cycle
16:05:30 <number80> My understanding is that pcmk 1 has docker support, pcmk 2 has podman support, and upstream CI needs both to run various tests
16:05:48 <dciabrin> pcmk 2 has both podman and docker support
16:06:23 <number80> ok, so having pcmk 2 only would work, or you still need pcmk 1 available?
16:06:41 <dciabrin> and so far there's no plan to ship podman support for pcmk1, not to support pcmk2 in centos7
16:07:30 <number80> I guess we need to add a specific repo then in trunk.rdoproject.org
16:07:45 <dciabrin> so the workaround we have atm is to backport podman support for pcmk1 on centos 7, but that's not a supported build
16:07:47 <dciabrin> ok
16:07:57 <number80> (we can build both in CBS which is not an issue)
16:08:23 <amoralej> my concern is about support after Stein GA
16:08:24 <amoralej> so
16:08:30 <dciabrin> amoralej, right
16:08:37 <amoralej> for CI, we can have a side repo temorarily
16:08:38 <amoralej> but
16:08:54 <amoralej> at Stein GA we will publish RDO official repos
16:09:03 <amoralej> on CentOS7
16:09:16 <amoralej> and if tripleo is supporting podman
16:09:27 <amoralej> we need to make sure there are proper and supported packages
16:09:30 <amoralej> for users
16:09:33 <amoralej> in official repos
16:09:40 <dciabrin> so how would you consider that:
16:09:53 <amoralej> afaik podman for CentOS is coming in one of the SIGs repos
16:09:59 <dciabrin> at GA, tripleo would support docker and podman on nonHA overclouds, and only docker for HA overclouds
16:10:01 <amoralej> let me double check
16:10:21 <dciabrin> as long as there's no pacemaker2 available in CentOS
16:10:36 <amoralej> dciabrin, i'm ok as far as it's properly documented and defaults point to the right options
16:10:39 <amoralej> in config
16:11:07 <number80> If we need pacemaker 2 in CentOS, we can do it, but for RHEL, that's another matter
16:11:28 <number80> (RDO also cares for RHEL users too)
16:11:42 <rdogerrit> Merged openstack/ceilometermiddleware-distgit rpm-master: Revert "Create python2/python3 package depending on distro"  https://review.rdoproject.org/r/17186
16:12:09 <amoralej> dciabrin, we also need to make sure that there is podman package released and published by sig by then
16:12:15 <apevec> number80, we don't want 2 pcmk in centos
16:12:19 <amoralej> currently it's only in -testing
16:12:25 <apevec> pcmk1 will be from base
16:12:45 <apevec> amoralej, podman is actually in Extras
16:12:47 <number80> apevec: ack
16:12:59 <amoralej> but i think oooq is using the one in virt sig?
16:13:02 <apevec> issue is pcmk2 which has _only_ podman support iiuc
16:13:10 <apevec> amoralej, yes, b/c Extras build was old
16:13:15 <apevec> it was updated recently
16:13:28 <apevec> so SIG builds can be seen as "preview"
16:13:29 <dciabrin> apevec, so i'm almost sure pacemaker 2 has _both_ docker and podman supported
16:13:33 <amoralej> so, extras will have good one "soon"?
16:13:38 <amoralej> ok
16:13:48 <apevec> dciabrin, ok, then I misunderstood
16:14:03 <dciabrin> apevec, let me quickly ask on #clusterlabs upstream
16:14:10 <apevec> amoralej, yeah, but given it requires pcmk2, we can't support it
16:14:31 <amoralej> apevec, it could be supported in non-ha, acccording to dciabrin
16:14:51 <apevec> dciabrin, EmilienM said:"the version of pcmk that bandini built only works for podman and not for docker.."
16:14:57 <apevec> bandini, ^
16:15:13 <dciabrin> apevec, yeah that's what Emilien misunderstood i believe
16:15:15 <number80> apevec: dciabrin is his substitute, bandini is in PTO
16:15:29 <apevec> PTO on IRC ?! :)
16:15:30 <dciabrin> bandini's build has an additional patch to support podman. it still supports docker
16:15:43 <apevec> dciabrin, ok, thanks for clarifying that
16:15:45 <number80> apevec: bandini has a real life :)
16:15:48 <dciabrin> haha :D
16:16:09 <number80> Yeah, but if pcmk 1 is in base, we can't patch it
16:16:09 <apevec> then question is: should RDO take burden of shipping pcmk2 for EL7 ?
16:16:31 <number80> apevec: we can ship it in a separate repo for CI purpose
16:16:35 <apevec> number80, +1 yeah, patching/overriding pcmk1 is out of question
16:16:42 <apevec> at GA
16:16:45 <jpena> if I understood all of this, the answer is no. We'd still have support for docker
16:16:46 <apevec> we did it temporarily once in the past
16:16:55 <number80> +1 jpena
16:17:05 <number80> docker is EL7 default container engine
16:17:07 <jpena> and we could consider pcmk2 support if we ever got a higher version of centos including it
16:17:26 <number80> 7.7!
16:17:40 * number80 is just spounting random number
16:17:43 <apevec> no, 7.x will not get pcmk2 IIUC
16:17:50 <apevec> and for centos8 we don't have a timeline
16:18:01 <apevec> but unlikely to have it at Stein GA
16:18:08 <number80> Ok
16:18:26 <number80> So we have two questions
16:18:36 <amoralej> so, we could have a side repo for CI only
16:18:38 <number80> a) how to provide pcmk 2 for upstream CI?
16:18:53 <amoralej> but make sure that supported, documented, default option is docker?
16:18:57 <number80> b) what are our plans for stein GA regarding pcmk
16:19:24 <apevec> ad a) yes, we could at trunk.rdo but out of deps
16:19:44 <apevec> ad b) Damien proposed " Stein GA defaulting to docker while upstream CI using CentOS 7, switched to podman default when CentOS 8 available post Stein GA"
16:19:48 <number80> ^ is everyone ok with that?
16:20:00 <jpena> +1
16:20:02 <apevec> we'd need to change OOO default for b)
16:20:09 <dciabrin> number80 so who would support pcmk2 in RDO?
16:20:11 <number80> +1 for both
16:20:19 <apevec> we'll need help from OOO team how to do that
16:20:20 <hitchover> +1 for both
16:20:24 <jpena> about a=), we should be careful *not* to ship it as part of the GA deps
16:20:36 <number80> dciabrin: we will collaborate with you to support pcmk 2
16:20:47 <number80> jpena: *YES* :)
16:20:48 <amoralej> i'm ok but just make sure we keep testing both
16:20:53 <apevec> dciabrin, only for CI use-case
16:21:09 <number80> #agreed ship pcmk2 in a separate repository for CI purpose *ONLY*
16:21:22 <dciabrin> number80, hmmm but until when? I don't see how we can support pcmk2 out of it's official centos release tbh
16:21:43 <amoralej> dciabrin, we well not support ir iiuc
16:22:07 <apevec> dciabrin, could we keep rebuilding Fedora SRPM?
16:22:16 <amoralej> we will keep that repo while we have openstack jobs in centos7 using podman
16:22:24 <number80> dciabrin: we will only fix issues blocking upstream CI so we can request help from inside Red Hat VPN if needed
16:23:31 <dciabrin> apevec, I guess that's a possibility, if f29 srpm are buildable in centos7
16:23:40 <EmilienM> I'm not sure I understood but you need to know that we will GA tripleo with podman by default
16:23:52 <EmilienM> And probably not on centos8
16:23:58 <EmilienM> Because of timing
16:24:04 <apevec> EmilienM, yes, that's understood, see above
16:24:12 <apevec> we're figuring that out
16:24:23 <apevec> b) what are our plans for stein GA regarding pcmk
16:24:24 <EmilienM> ok. Sorry on my phone
16:24:52 <apevec> proposal is to change default to docker for RDO Stein GA on CentOS7 in April 2019
16:24:56 <dciabrin> EmilienM, the point is how can we give any supportability guarantee for HA overcloud + podman
16:25:11 <apevec> dciabrin, IIUC we can't on centos7
16:25:19 <dciabrin> that my understanding as well, yes
16:25:36 <dciabrin> because RHEL7 doesn't plan to ship podman support in pacemaker at this stage
16:25:43 <EmilienM> We will need to. We're switching our CI to podman
16:25:48 <apevec> EmilienM, we would ship pcmk2 ONLY for CI
16:25:54 <EmilienM> Yea
16:26:04 <apevec> but we don't want that for GA on EL7
16:26:19 <apevec> since we'd have to maintain pcmk2
16:26:25 <dciabrin> I think what apevec says is the best compromise at this stage
16:27:26 <EmilienM> As long as we can test in CI im happy
16:27:38 <amoralej> EmilienM, we will keep testing both?
16:27:40 <EmilienM> HA overcloud with podman on centos 7
16:27:47 <EmilienM> Docker and podman yes
16:27:50 <apevec> excellent, we're all about making EmilienM happy!
16:27:57 <EmilienM> We're doing iterative changes in CI
16:28:33 <EmilienM> So we have both container CLI in the same time
16:28:51 <amoralej> then, i think having pcmk for CI only but officially support for docker with supported pcmk is the right path
16:28:53 <EmilienM> We do baby steps
16:28:55 <amoralej> right?
16:29:02 <dciabrin> I don't see any objection to use a specific pacemaker version in CI only for testing podman and docker engines
16:29:18 <EmilienM> Yeah wfm
16:29:50 <dciabrin> so I guess the question next is what version to ship, but that's an implementation detail to be sorted out eventually
16:30:03 <dciabrin> "to ship" -> "to use for CI test only"
16:30:23 <dciabrin> today it's pcmk1+patch-to-support-podman
16:30:33 <apevec> if we can rebuild f29 SRPM, that would be easiest
16:30:40 <dciabrin> what Emilien is using in his temporary repo built by bandini
16:30:48 <dciabrin> ok I'll have a look at that
16:30:52 <number80> => https://cbs.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=597460
16:30:55 <apevec> ah, so currently pcmk2 is not used?
16:31:14 <apevec> number80, that was f29 rebuild?
16:31:21 <dciabrin> apevec, yeah currently bandini built pcmk1 + a patch backported from pcmk2 to support podman
16:31:29 <number80> apevec: it needs *drum rolls* python3
16:31:38 <dciabrin> apevec, and this is this frankenstein build that Emilien is consuming
16:31:51 <dciabrin> number80, damned :) :(
16:32:14 <EmilienM> It's Halloween 🦇 heh
16:32:15 <amoralej> so, let's create repo in rdo-common and rebuild
16:32:17 <number80> I'll look if I can switch it to python2
16:32:30 <apevec> dciabrin, yeah, let's not go with frankensteins :)
16:32:36 <amoralej> and push to somewhere in trunk.r.o
16:32:43 <EmilienM> I'll need to create an infra mirror of this repo
16:32:57 <EmilienM> If not already mirrored
16:32:59 <apevec> EmilienM, all of trunk.rdo is already proxy-cached
16:33:05 <EmilienM> Perfect 👌
16:33:13 <apevec> so you just used $NODEPOOL*something
16:33:19 <number80> #action number80 look if we can build pacemaker2 with python2
16:34:23 <dciabrin> I just got confirmation that pcmk2 upstream supports docker podman and rocket
16:34:43 <dciabrin> so having an internal build for CI consumption only should be good enough for testing both docker and podman
16:35:55 <number80> we have deal then
16:36:03 <dciabrin> I looks like it yes :)
16:36:09 <EmilienM> Yay
16:38:01 <number80> So I guess we can move to the next topic?
16:38:33 <number80> (if someone has access to etherpad, please change the topic)
16:38:48 <number80> oh it works now and there's no new topic
16:38:54 <number80> #topic next week chair
16:39:01 <number80> who wants the iron throne?
16:39:20 <amoralej> i can take it
16:39:29 <number80> #info amoralej chairing next week
16:39:32 <number80> thank you!
16:39:38 <number80> #topic open floor
16:39:48 <number80> Last chance to bring a topic before we end this meeting
16:40:40 <hitchover> question from a total beginner: which docs do you suggest me to start with to help with RDO?
16:40:43 * number80 managed to get pacemaker 2 building with py2 on fedora
16:41:14 <hitchover> ofc starting to try RDO on a virtual machine, but I hear that to contribute e.g. to documentation something like phisical infra could be needed
16:41:35 <number80> hitchover: if you can contribute documentation that'd be awesome.
16:41:54 <number80> We also have https://github.com/redhat-openstack/easyfix/issues but it has not been updated for while (though most open issues should remain valid)
16:41:57 <jpena> hitchover: there's https://www.rdoproject.org/contribute/
16:42:56 <hitchover> thanks number80, jpena
16:43:04 <jpena> in general, every page at rdoproject.org has an "Edit on Github" ribbon, that allows you to propose a change
16:45:08 <number80> Excellent, then we can close this meeting
16:45:16 <number80> Have a good day and see you next week!
16:45:19 <number80> #endmeeting