14:00:05 <marios> #startmeeting tripleo
14:00:06 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Feb  2 14:00:05 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is marios. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:07 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:09 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tripleo'
14:00:14 <marios> #topic agenda
14:00:15 <marios> * Review last minutes & action items
14:00:15 <marios> * One off agenda items
14:00:15 <marios> * Bugs & Blueprints
14:00:15 <marios> * Projects releases or stable backports
14:00:17 <marios> * Specs
14:00:19 <marios> * open discussion
14:00:22 <marios> Anyone can use the #link, #action and #info commands, not just the moderator«É
14:00:24 <marios> Hello folks, who is around today? o/
14:00:27 <fultonj> o/
14:00:34 <rlandy> o/
14:00:36 <jpena> o/
14:00:37 <weshay|ruck> 0/
14:00:49 <ykarel> 0/
14:00:59 <marios> \o
14:01:07 <akahat|rover> o/
14:01:10 <sshnaidm|ruck> o/
14:01:12 <slagle> hi
14:01:20 <marios> hello all... k let's get going and folks will catch up as they can
14:01:29 <marios> #topic review last meeting logs & action items
14:01:40 <marios> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2021/tripleo.2021-01-19-14.00.html
14:01:51 <marios> anything someone wants to bring up about last meeting?
14:01:54 * marios checks minutes
14:02:04 <nhicher> o/
14:02:41 <marios> k ... moving on to one-off items
14:02:48 <marios> #topic one off agenda items
14:02:53 <marios> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-meeting-items
14:02:55 <beagles> o/
14:02:57 <fmount> o/
14:03:13 <chandankumar> \o
14:03:16 <marios> if you don't mind I'd like to start with the community items this week
14:03:22 <marios> i think there will be some discussion around the first one
14:03:40 <marios> #info "tripleo ci usage" - came up at the TC and they have reached out to us
14:03:55 <marios> #link  http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-01-21-15.00.log.html#l-48
14:04:00 <cloudnull> o/
14:04:03 <bogdando> o/
14:04:04 <marios> #link http://paste.openstack.org/show/jD6kAP9tHk7PZr2nhv8h jobs breakdown
14:04:08 <ramishra> o/
14:04:28 <marios> so the logs above are from a recent (last week) tc meeting where our (high) job usage came up
14:04:42 <marios> the paste is from a compilation/breakdown of the jobs
14:04:59 <bogdando> perhaps gate jobs must not be same as check? why do they always so? if check can't be passed, nothing normally  gets merged, so repeating same at the gate seems pointless
14:05:05 <tkajinam> o/
14:05:12 <bogdando> let's leave only a few standalone jobs for the gate
14:05:18 <marios> the tc reached out via mnaser (email to me) about this. I pointed to some of the things we're doing around reducing content providers and removing upgrade jobs upstream and waiting to hear back
14:05:35 * weshay|ruck notes the historical context
14:05:39 <bogdando> and let periodic to catch merge-related collisions, if any
14:05:44 <marios> thanks bogdando ... so yeah this is to ask for ideas around how else we can improve
14:05:48 <weshay|ruck> at one point tripleo used 55+% of upstream resources
14:05:52 <mnaser> (and with my vexxhost hat on, there's some seemingly slow systems on our donated ci resources, so working on that)
14:06:09 <marios> ramishra: brought us some more ideas just now in the community call around reducing some of the unnecessary scenario coverage eg. against changes in tripleoclient
14:06:11 <sshnaidm|ruck> bogdando, merging collisions will break check jobs
14:06:12 <bogdando> I think the problem now is not that much time of a job as recheck numbers
14:06:18 <marios> o/ mnaser
14:06:21 <weshay|ruck> and we've brought that down to 30.8%, perhaps more is needed but.. I think the tripleo group has responded well to infra concerns in the past
14:06:32 <bogdando> sshnaidm|ruck: that's even better then
14:06:52 <sshnaidm|ruck> bogdando, having merging conflict in repo? :)
14:07:21 <marios> with my tripleo-ci hat on, i can say that we will likely have at least one task on improvements/optimizations to jobs this coming sprint which should help (files: matching, tempest jobs optimization ... ? other ideas)
14:07:30 <ykarel> the above paste is from For period from 2020-12-20 06:25:32,187 to 2021-01-19 15:53:34,923, can we collect matrix post cleanup of upgrade/providers jobs, and also before introduction of provider/consumer jobs so we have more data
14:07:40 <marios> ykarel: right good point
14:07:42 <openstackgerrit> amolkahat proposed openstack/tripleo-ci master: Log directory workspace/logs do not exists.  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-ci/+/772372
14:07:55 <sshnaidm|ruck> ykarel, yes, and after we optimize standalones
14:08:06 <ykarel> on how much we improved post cleanup and how much provider/consumer helped in reduction resources
14:08:11 <weshay|ruck> yes.. moving off of docker.io to use content-providers did increase our util... but we're bringing that back down as well
14:08:19 <sshnaidm|ruck> marios, worth to mention that it was a transient period
14:08:28 <bogdando> sshnaidm|ruck: not in the repo, no, just if something that passed the check gets suddenly broken while gating
14:08:33 <weshay|ruck> for data.. one can refer to
14:08:34 <weshay|ruck> http://dashboard-ci.tripleo.org/d/Z4vLSmOGk/cockpit?viewPanel=71&orgId=1&from=now-6M&to=now
14:08:38 <bogdando> and looses coverage
14:08:47 <weshay|ruck> to see zuul enqueued time over the last 6 months
14:08:53 <bogdando> and still gets merged... so periodics to catch that up
14:08:54 <marios> sshnaidm|ruck: yes right ... we were in a rush to implement it on a deadline before docker changes and we missed some efficiency improvements but they are coming/have come now
14:09:21 <marios> as weshay|ruck pointed out above too 16:08 <@weshay|ruck> yes.. moving off of docker.io to use content-providers did increase our util... but we're bringing that back down as well
14:09:30 <slagle> mnaser: is there any data around on what we need to reduce to, either in terms of node time or %'age?
14:09:42 <openstackgerrit> Ronelle Landy proposed openstack/tripleo-specs master: WIP: Add spec for single sourcing repo setup  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/772442
14:09:49 <weshay|ruck> mnaser, yes.. we would love to set targets
14:09:57 <slagle> not to rehash, but when this has come up in the past, it's always "tripleo uses too much"
14:09:58 <marios> slagle: mnaser: right, i was waiting to hear back about any specific actions that are required from us now, i didnt see something in the followup tc meeting either
14:10:06 <slagle> then we want to know what our targets are
14:10:07 <marios> slagle: +1
14:10:08 * weshay|ruck agress w/ slagle
14:10:14 <weshay|ruck> agrees even
14:10:14 <mnaser> i think that's a fair ask
14:10:16 <slagle> we're going to keep adding stuff
14:10:28 <openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/diskimage-builder master: Fix CentOS Stream 8 base repo in centos element  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/diskimage-builder/+/771979
14:10:29 <slagle> unless we set some limits for ourselves
14:11:01 <marios> slagle: well we kinda *are* in the sense that we aren't just mindlessly adding things, we do have recurring cycles of 'lets improve our jobs' in the ci team
14:11:06 <marios> slagle: are setting limits i mean
14:11:07 <ykarel> also would be good if those matrix can be public so we can always see ourselves how much it g etting improve/degrade with ci improvement efforts like at https://grafana.opendev.org/d/9XCNuphGk/zuul-status?orgId=1
14:11:47 <slagle> mnaser, marios: yes, i know, but it seems like we don't have the insight into resource usage and quotas, etc.
14:11:49 <amoralej> do we have numbers about how many jobs are failing and how many of them are just unreliable requiring to recheck?
14:12:08 <mnaser> slagle: i think that's the hard question the tc needs to come up with -- what is the tripleo target they should aim for
14:12:12 <slagle> we're actually quite good about managing our 3rd party rdo jobs, b/c we have set our quotas, and we limit our jobs to respect that
14:12:14 <marios> amoralej: we could get some stats around that from grafana
14:12:27 <marios> amoralej: see job exploration panel you can search by job and it gives breakdown
14:12:37 <bogdando> would be nice to see how much rechecks put in
14:12:37 <sshnaidm|ruck> amoralej, it'd be possible to see if people were adding bug number or reason to recheck, but it's not so popular
14:12:56 <bogdando> especially if check has passed, then rechecking the failed gate, and here we start all over again
14:12:59 <weshay|ruck> mnaser, and /me notes.. the data re: our usage is usually pastebin'd to us from time to time
14:13:14 <weshay|ruck> is there on-going data we can refer to?
14:13:19 <marios> k i am going to cap this in a couple mins at 10 mins as we have other items, we can revisit in open discussion and also on mailing list after we hear back from tc
14:13:31 <slagle> mnaser: marios: i'm happy to work point on this part of the conversation, if I can help at all from the tripleo side
14:13:39 * sshnaidm|ruck is thinking of automation and visualization of rechecks in grafana
14:13:42 <weshay|ruck> in fact zbr and I checked in w/ infra 3-4 weeks ago.. and they seemed ok w/ our consumption at that time
14:13:45 <mnaser> slagle: ok, great, thank you, i'll take this and bring it back to the tc meeting tmrw
14:13:48 <marios> but especially mnaser we need to hear about what the ask is from the tc at this point besides 'please reduce jobs' i mean we need something a bit more specific/target to work towards
14:13:51 <bogdando> mnaser: please consider making recheck'ed jobs always be the last in the queue
14:14:04 <bogdando> so new jobs will arrive before any queued rechecks
14:14:21 <marios> mnaser: and as brought up here, can we recheck those stats after our most recent improvements, they must be a little lower now
14:14:57 <marios> k anything else before we move on for now at least
14:14:59 <mnaser> yeah so i think actionable things are: make some sort of transparent way of getting access to stats to see improvements or not, get a 'quota' to see where they can aim for
14:15:15 <mnaser> and a suggestion of 'recheck' going to end of queue
14:15:29 <marios> mnaser: sounds good thank you
14:15:53 <marios> k just a couple of announcement type community points before i hand it off to others ...
14:15:53 <sshnaidm|ruck> maybe worth to not allow recheck if there is no reason mentioned in it?
14:15:59 <marios> #info openstack-tempest-skiplist - release-management: none https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/771488  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-January/019846.html
14:16:10 <sshnaidm|ruck> like must set something after "recheck"
14:16:23 <marios> that came up from the release team... we don't need to make releases there so we made it so
14:16:36 <marios> #info os-collect-config, os-refresh-config, os-apply-config moving to independent release model https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/772570 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-January/019778.html
14:16:54 <openstackgerrit> Ronelle Landy proposed openstack/tripleo-specs master: WIP: Add spec for single sourcing repo setup  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/772442
14:17:08 <marios> os-collec-config and friends... moving to no longer create branches... we aren't using it, looks like no-one else is either (heat may be, but they didn't seem interested to own it at this point)
14:17:10 <bogdando> sshnaidm|ruck: being always the last on queue would be much less restrictive
14:17:18 <marios> #info wallaby-2 release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/771830 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-January/019839.html
14:17:25 <marios> #info stable/ussuri release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/772047 (or request from ykarel)
14:17:31 <ramishra> yeah we need to force some discipline for blind rechecks.. though I'm not sure pushing all rechecks to end of queue is a good idea
14:17:32 <marios> #info created wallaby-2 release https://launchpad.net/tripleo/wallaby & move_bugs.py tripleo wallaby2 wallaby-3 https://gist.github.com/marios/b3155fe3b1318cc26bfa4bc15c764a26#gistcomment-3612676
14:17:40 <bogdando> and only projects with flaky jobs will suffer, not all of them waiting in the gate
14:17:41 <sshnaidm|ruck> bogdando, it still prevents people from blind rechecks and motivates them to see what is the problem
14:17:48 <marios> k any comments or questions on any of those community projects?
14:18:02 <marios> sshnaidm|ruck: bogdando: ramishra: let's revisit in open discussion in a bit otherwise it will be hard to stick to the agenda in time
14:18:06 <bogdando> k
14:18:09 <marios> thanks folks sorry
14:18:19 <marios> k lets move on... taking it form the top of the etherpad
14:18:27 <marios> jpodivin: please go ahead?
14:18:39 <marios> jpodivin: is that one yours         validations-libs and validations-common documentation dependecies
14:18:41 <jpodivin> hi
14:18:50 <jpodivin> yep that is me sorry for the delay.
14:19:07 <jpodivin> Thing came up by accident and turned rather complex.
14:19:20 <jpodivin> Is everyone familiar with openstack/requirements?
14:19:41 <marios> jpodivin: so this is missing openstack/requirements from some of our repos?
14:20:22 <jpodivin> essentially yes,
14:20:34 <openstackgerrit> Jose Luis Franco proposed openstack/tripleo-ansible master: Reshape tripleo-transfer to transfer files between remote hosts.  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-ansible/+/771657
14:20:53 <jpodivin> but the real issue is that the projects have the checks disabled.
14:21:30 <marios> jpodivin: openstack-tox-requirements job you mean
14:21:42 <jpodivin> yes.
14:21:54 <jpodivin> Turns out it's a bit more widespread.
14:22:09 <zbr> weshay|ruck: yeah, no pressure from infra regarding us at this moment, but we should not take this as granted forever, it can easily change.
14:22:17 <marios> jpodivin: so is that something you can/interested in working on ? i think we should have that job running in all the repos afaik
14:22:30 <weshay|ruck> zbr, yes.. agree
14:22:48 <jpodivin> certainly, the issue is, that there is some confusion about necessity of it.
14:22:55 <marios> anyone else have comment about missing openstack-tox-requirements job on tripleo repos or have context about why it was removed?
14:22:58 <openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/tripleo-heat-templates stable/ussuri: Remove External{Internal,Public,Admin}Url parameters  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/773418
14:23:07 <jpodivin> with the newly upgraded pip, some of the depency issues are seemingly resolved.
14:23:07 <openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/tripleo-quickstart-extras master: Refresh bindep config  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-quickstart-extras/+/772879
14:23:39 <jpodivin> in VF a question came up, if we shouldn't just break from openstack/requirements.
14:23:45 <zbr> in fact that is one issue why I find the low-resource testing (lint/unit/molecule) as a good investment for us: it helps us save resources (and time) by finding bugs quickly and lowering the rountrips.
14:23:50 <marios> jpodivin: what is VF
14:24:04 <marios> validation framework probably
14:24:20 <cloudnull> zbr +1
14:24:26 <jpodivin> yes that is what I meant.
14:24:34 <jpodivin> sorry
14:24:40 <jpodivin> should have led with that.
14:25:22 <marios> so jpodivin are you blocked on that or would you like to try and post reviews so we can see any specific objections to adding those?
14:26:02 <marios> by see i mean i am hoping folks will comment on the reviews
14:26:11 <openstackgerrit> Giulio Fidente proposed openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: Enforces minimum Ceph client version to Mimic  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/773539
14:26:39 <marios> k going to move on in a second if there is nothign further on that for now...
14:27:04 <jpodivin> I thinl that's it for now.
14:27:09 <marios> thanks jpodivin
14:27:18 <marios> ok slagle would you like to go ahead?
14:27:29 <marios> i think you're one is next on https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tripleo-meeting-items
14:27:37 <marios> your you're ;)
14:27:45 <slagle> sure, topic is ephemeral-heat
14:27:53 <slagle> first, any objections to merging the spec?
14:28:05 <slagle> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/765000
14:28:23 <slagle> the initial patches are already posted
14:28:26 <slagle> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22ephemeral-heat%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged)
14:29:00 <cloudnull> +2 merge it
14:29:05 <slagle> if anyone wants to test locally, i have a script
14:29:08 <slagle> #link https://gist.github.com/slagle/7fc36854947ec2ac2e309f6981b99b65
14:29:09 * cloudnull is happy to +w
14:29:47 <marios> nice thanks for the update slagle looks like it is starting to shape up and we might even have something by wallaby (just cos the spec was a bit late)
14:29:49 <slagle> you don't need an undercloud if you use pre-deployed nodes. which is really nice, you can run it from a laptop. i'm testing it with a bare centos vm
14:30:10 <marios> slagle: well let just merge the spec now
14:30:11 <slagle> cloudnull: thanks. let's merge it
14:30:14 <marios> i think we've had enough time
14:30:16 <marios> going to
14:30:29 <slagle> marios: that's all from me
14:30:32 <cloudnull> slagle done
14:30:33 <marios> done
14:30:34 <marios> :D
14:30:46 <cloudnull> double done
14:30:56 <marios> ;)
14:31:19 <marios> next is storage fultonj fmount gfidente o/ folks please go ahead
14:31:22 <openstackgerrit> Sandeep Yadav proposed openstack/tripleo-ci master: Remove tripleo_* file pattern for Standalone scen  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-ci/+/773692
14:31:39 <fultonj> #info Need six reviews to get THT standalone scenario001 using cephadm in place of ceph-ansible and default to Ceph ocotopus
14:31:51 <fultonj> list of reviews on line 26 of
14:31:54 <fultonj> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tripleo-meeting-items
14:32:03 <marios> fultonj: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22cephadm_integration%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) ?
14:32:09 <marios> topic branch might be better if that is correct
14:32:26 <fultonj> same topic yes, but order not same
14:32:31 <marios> fultonj: k
14:32:53 <fultonj> changing default ceph container from nautilus to ocotpus
14:33:14 <fultonj> hard coding jobs to nautilus
14:33:18 <fultonj> then moving jobs one by one
14:33:40 <fultonj> 001-standalone is working without ceph-ansible and with ocotpus
14:33:44 <fultonj> it will move first
14:33:50 <fultonj> hopefully this week
14:33:53 <fultonj> then 004
14:34:01 <openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/tripleo-heat-templates stable/ussuri: Remove ffwd lifecycle environment files.  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/772414
14:34:03 <fultonj> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-ceph
14:34:11 <fultonj> has been updated status to "good progress"
14:34:20 <marios> fultonj: nice
14:34:20 <fultonj> #info We expect W to not require ceph-ansible at GA, but ceph is still deployed DURING overcloud if network isolation desired
14:34:42 <fultonj> #info However, we plan to add CLI tools to deploy ceph before overcloud for experiemental use in W (just no network isol before overcloud yet)
14:34:50 <fultonj> #info ceph-ansible deployment of Nauitlus will work but be deprecated in W (removed in X)
14:35:03 <fultonj> #info cephadm deployment of Pacific will be recommended Ceph default in W
14:35:07 <fultonj> #info Pacifc to GA in March during Wallaby M3 (currently using Octopus)
14:35:19 <fultonj> we have a draft of the release note
14:35:20 <fultonj> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/767294/45/releasenotes/notes/cephadm-28185ca8ac814567.yaml
14:35:24 <fultonj> still working on it
14:35:35 <fultonj> so it's M2, and I think we're on schedule for the ceph switch
14:36:42 <fultonj> that's all from the ceph side. any questions?
14:37:17 <marios> o/ i got dropped ... is this thing on
14:37:29 <cloudnull> ack
14:37:32 <marios> thanks cloudnull
14:37:45 <marios> sorry if i missed something fultonj is there something more on the storage update
14:37:57 <fmount> thanks fultonj great summary
14:38:02 <fultonj> marios: nothing else, thanks
14:38:04 <fmount> marios: I think it's all on ceph side
14:38:09 <marios> thanks as always for a great update
14:38:14 <marios> fultonj:++
14:38:24 <marios> moving on ...
14:38:35 <marios> from ci i added a point earlier about some ongoing work, just early socialisation
14:38:41 <marios> #info (early work/ongoing) Spec for single sourcing repo setup using tripleo-repos  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/772442
14:38:57 <marios> we want to streamline the way we are laying down repos ... if you are interested please comment on the spec ^^^
14:39:16 <marios> we may not merge it for W realistically delivered for X
14:39:31 <marios> any other one items?
14:39:49 <openstackgerrit> Merged openstack/tripleo-specs master: Ephemeral Heat for the Overcloud spec  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/765000
14:39:53 <marios> then let's move on and get to open discussion quickly as possible...
14:40:01 <marios> #topic Bugs and blueprints
14:40:01 <marios> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/
14:40:01 <marios> #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/openstack/tripleo-ansible
14:40:01 <marios> #link  https://launchpad.net/tripleo/+milestone/wallaby-3
14:40:02 <marios> #link https://launchpad.net/tripleo/wallaby
14:40:34 <marios> i closed out the wallaby-2 series in launchpad and moved the bugs to wallaby-3      https://gist.github.com/marios/b3155fe3b1318cc26bfa4bc15c764a26#gistcomment-3612676
14:40:42 <openstackgerrit> Ronelle Landy proposed openstack/tripleo-specs master: WIP: Add spec for single sourcing repo setup  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/772442
14:40:49 <marios> any bugs someone wants to hilight?
14:40:55 <marios> sshnaidm|ruck: do we have any gate blockers right now or akahat|rover
14:41:08 <sshnaidm|ruck> marios, gate blockers - no
14:41:13 <sshnaidm|ruck> only promotion blockers
14:41:15 <marios> sshnaidm|ruck: thank you
14:41:23 <marios> sshnaidm|ruck: anything you want to higlight on bugs?
14:41:45 <sshnaidm|ruck> nope, akahat|rover ? ^
14:41:54 <akahat|rover> marios, no
14:41:59 <marios> akahat|rover: sshnaidm|ruck: ack thanks folks just checking
14:42:09 <marios> since its the right agenda item ;) ... moving on
14:42:18 <marios> #topic Project releases or stable backports
14:42:19 <marios> #info tripleo wallaby repos https://releases.openstack.org/teams/tripleo.html#wallaby
14:42:30 <marios> as noted in the etherpad i made a wallaby-2 release and a stable/ussuri.
14:43:18 <marios> any other release requests or other comments?
14:43:34 <marios> k moving on ...
14:43:35 <marios> #topic specs
14:43:36 <marios> #info https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/tripleo-specs
14:43:37 <marios> #info https://opendev.org/openstack/tripleo-specs/src/branch/master/specs/wallaby
14:43:43 <marios> i think we got them all now no?
14:44:10 <marios> ah frrouter one can still merge
14:44:22 <marios> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/758249
14:44:41 <marios> any objection to mergeing that one?
14:44:44 <marios> it has come up here before
14:44:47 <marios> it has enough votes
14:45:03 <marios> doesn't look like it will be updated far as i can see ... anyone else know more about that one?
14:45:55 <marios> k i just workflowed it
14:46:02 <marios> we can update it if there is something further anyway ;)
14:46:16 <marios> #topic open discussion
14:46:18 <marios> Anything else that folks want to bring up to the meeting?
14:46:45 <marios> any more discussion on the jobs /resource usage ?
14:46:53 <marios> or any other topic
14:46:59 <marios> any other tripleo topic :)
14:47:19 <openstackgerrit> Pranali Deore proposed openstack/puppet-tripleo master: Handle cinder_mount_point_base for cinder mounting needs  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-tripleo/+/773699
14:47:24 <marios> going once
14:47:50 <marios> 2x
14:47:54 <cloudnull> swift removal work is coming along nicely - https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22env_merging%22+(status:open) - if folks have a moment to review it would be greatly appreciated :D
14:48:05 * cloudnull shameless plug -cc ramishra
14:48:17 <marios> thanks cloudnull
14:49:00 <slagle> cloudnull: iiuc, it seems more like the approach now is completely remove plan and associated handling
14:49:16 <slagle> *instead* of replace swift with native os calls?
14:49:35 <slagle> seems like the server side env handling facilitated the shift
14:49:56 <cloudnull> yeah, its a bit of a change from what I was originally trying to do, however, imo what rabi has put together is a lot better.
14:50:19 <slagle> make sense. just wanted to make sure i was understanding the intent
14:50:29 <marios> cloudnull: is it worth updating the spec?
14:50:38 <cloudnull> while the plan is going away - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-tripleoclient/+/773565 - that will archive all the files
14:50:45 <cloudnull> so we still have access to rebuild it all
14:51:28 <cloudnull> marios we could though the approach is more an evolution of intent. so idk if its worth it
14:51:40 <cloudnull> but happy to do it you think it best
14:51:57 <marios> cloudnull: no just checking, i mean we still are removing swift ... just also removing the plan altogether
14:52:01 <marios> cloudnull: thanks
14:52:05 <cloudnull> ++
14:52:57 <marios> k last call any other discussion please
14:53:09 * cloudnull promises to remain silent
14:53:14 <marios> you have the right
14:53:26 <marios> thank you everyone for participating today and bringing your topics. next meeting Tue 16 Feb
14:53:38 <marios> #endmeeting tripleo