16:01:03 #startmeeting blazar 16:01:04 Meeting started Thu Sep 10 16:01:03 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is priteau. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:05 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:01:07 The meeting name has been set to 'blazar' 16:01:33 #topic Roll call 16:06:03 (just saying hi, nothing to contribute :) 16:06:52 Hi tosky 16:09:38 o/ 16:09:40 Hi diurnalist 16:09:57 just us today, I take? 16:10:33 there's tosky too, he worked on zuulv3 migration 16:11:04 #topic Victoria release 16:11:17 So today is Victoria feature freeze day already :/ 16:11:50 Unless there's a push in the next couple of weeks, any new feature would have to wait for Wallaby 16:12:24 sheesh, how time flies 16:12:57 did you complete the usage enforcement code in Chameleon in the end? 16:13:26 yes, we did actually. We are in the middle of testing it now (in production), but it's working well thusfar. 16:13:42 before jake went on leave, he was working on buttoning up a changeset to propose 16:13:47 which mostly entailed writing tests 16:14:14 I'm not 100% sure if there was more needed on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/736993/ 16:14:33 from a cursory look it looks like more tests are needed at least 16:15:09 At the very least fixing the failing CI checks 16:15:25 That might be why Jake set the Workflow-1 flag on it 16:15:35 The unit tests are passing, but no the tempest ones 16:16:10 I see that jake had an updated changeset on our github repo that i don't think has made it up to gerrit 16:16:20 And since no tempest scenario was added, I can only guess that it's caused by some code error in this patch 16:16:41 If you think it can be submitted, please do 16:17:08 ok 16:17:58 It's also final release for client libs 16:18:00 just looking through our github for any other things we've added to blazar... 16:18:22 I reviewed and tested https://review.opendev.org/#/c/748540/ 16:18:33 it seems to work fine 16:18:44 priteau: thank you for fixing the lint errors on that, and thanks for testing 16:19:01 But tetsuro hasn't replied to my request for review 16:19:49 I think I'll make an exception and approve it 16:20:20 there is also the oslo.context patch i submitted to blazar, that one i am a bit more concerned about, how it may impact other deployments 16:20:32 it's something that's difficult to have good test coverage for 16:22:11 That one is more difficult 16:22:36 But I think it can be considered as "not a feature" and merged in the coming weeks 16:23:45 Are you running with this patch in prod? 16:23:58 (the oslo context one) 16:28:15 We've lost diunalist due to hardware issues 16:33:33 Welcome back diurnalist! 16:33:38 i am back, finally. my mac crashed spectacularly. to answer your question: yes, we run the oslo context patch in prod 16:33:54 Well, that gives me more confidence in it 16:34:11 I'll take a closer look at it 16:34:12 i found one bug with it, which i fixed and i believe pushed as a new patchset 16:35:13 yes, i did 16:35:43 i may be misinterpreting the purpose of oslo.context 16:36:24 but the changeset doesn't really alter _how_ the context is used, just how it is constructed 16:37:24 I admit I don't really understand how oslo.context works :/ 16:38:32 Anything else that we should look into merging for Victoria? 16:38:50 looking through our blazar-dashboard history now 16:40:00 i think we have the resource API integration in the dashboard but don't have a patchset for that 16:40:30 that feels like it's going to be a stretch. i think we should focus on the existing stuff in review and i'll try to get the enforcement stuff up 16:41:43 At this point in the release cycle only minor changes will get approved, but you can still submit more patches, they'll be ready for Wallaby 16:42:14 that was going to be my question--so feature freeze means freeze on anything that needs to be merged, even if it's in the review queue 16:42:46 Well, any new feature that isn't yet merged has to wait for the next release 16:42:56 Even if it was submitted a long time ago 16:43:10 That's to focus on stabilising the software in the next few weeks 16:43:42 But we can still start reviewing code for the next release already 16:44:01 makes sense 16:44:02 Talking about the PTG 16:44:07 #topic Wallaby PTG 16:44:42 I probably won't be able to make it due to our second child showing up just at the same time, so I've proposed not to meet (there's still a long to do list from the last PTG anyway) 16:44:59 saw your email about that. yes, I think that makes sense 16:45:00 Of course, if you would like to organise something, feel free to do so 16:45:17 it sounds like it would be organising myself :) 16:45:50 Yeah Blazar is too quiet at the moment :/ 16:45:54 are you still looking in to doing preemptible instances w/ blazar? it feels that at this point Chameleon is perhaps the only active contributor to the project 16:46:22 I did submit the preemptibles patches just a few days ago, but they need more work 16:46:45 https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749151/ and https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749152/ 16:47:19 thanks 16:47:35 The work project that might have used this code was delayed so I haven't been able to spend much time on it yet 16:48:11 do you have any idea of the new timeline? 16:48:36 it's possible we could leverage this new ability to run htc computations on spare cycles 16:48:41 No, but I'll try to get this in shape for an inclusion early in Wallaby 16:48:49 ok 16:48:56 The patches are very small so you should be able to cherry-pick them easily 16:49:06 I would be glad to have your feedback 16:50:05 Should we wrap up for today? 16:50:17 yes, sounds good. lots to do!! 16:50:48 Thanks diurnalist for joining, good talking with you 16:50:52 #endmeeting