21:00:03 <efried> #startmeeting nova
21:00:04 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Feb 13 21:00:03 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is efried. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:05 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:08 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nova'
21:00:17 <efried> #link agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Nova#Agenda_for_next_meeting
21:01:01 <gmann> o/
21:01:09 <melwitt> o/
21:01:09 <efried> #topic Last meeting
21:01:10 <efried> #link Minutes from last meeting: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova/2020/nova.2020-02-06-14.00.html
21:01:10 * efried sean-k-mooney to do the train implemented specs business
21:01:10 <efried> Done: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/706276/ (needs review please)
21:01:10 * efried efried to ML about spec scrub day
21:01:10 <efried> Done: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012424.html
21:01:10 * efried lyarwood to curate rocky EM list
21:01:22 <rosmaita> o/
21:01:25 <efried> Not sure about that last one, and I imagine lyarwood is afk
21:01:32 <efried> will fup next week I guess.
21:02:12 <efried> #topic Bugs (stuck/critical)
21:02:12 <efried> No Critical bugs
21:02:15 <efried> However,
21:02:24 <efried> #link 96 new untriaged bugs (+6 since the last meeting): https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?search=Search&field.status=New
21:02:24 <efried> #link 21 untagged untriaged bugs (+6 since the last meeting): https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=-*&field.status%3Alist=NEW
21:02:29 <efried> these numbers are rising steadily
21:02:36 <efried> #link bug triage how-to: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/BugTriage#Tags
21:02:37 <efried> #help need help with bug triage
21:03:00 <efried> I think mriedem said if we get to 100 untriaged bugs, a huge marshmallow man comes and wrecks shop.
21:03:58 <efried> #topic Reminders
21:03:58 <efried> SPEC FREEZE IS NOW
21:03:58 <efried> #link ussuri blueprints https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/ussuri
21:04:22 <efried> So we're at 30 open blueprints, of which six are still not Design:approved.
21:04:46 <efried> NUMA topology with RPs
21:04:46 <efried> #link blueprint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/numa-topology-with-rps
21:04:46 <efried> #link spec Proposes NUMA topology with RPs https://review.opendev.org/552924
21:05:15 <efried> We've been back and forth on this one. I think it needs one more rev, as noted. Hopefully we can approve it in the morning.
21:05:28 <efried> nothing to be done now, since the main players are euro.
21:05:38 <efried> Unified limits
21:05:38 <efried> #link blueprint unified-limits-nova https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/unified-limits-nova
21:05:38 <efried> #link spec Add Unified Limits Spec https://review.opendev.org/#/c/602201/
21:06:04 <efried> melwitt is +2. Anybody qualified to +A that? (I'm not.) dansmith?
21:06:18 <melwitt> I think we were hoping for alex_xu for the other approver
21:06:22 <dansmith> not me
21:06:49 <melwitt> but bauzas is also reviewing it
21:06:50 <efried> okay.
21:07:15 <melwitt> and stephenfin
21:07:54 <efried> k, next:
21:08:06 <efried> Support volume local cache
21:08:06 <efried> #link blueprint support-volume-local-cache https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/support-volume-local-cache
21:08:06 <efried> #link spec Support volume local cache https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689070/
21:08:18 <rosmaita> the cinder side hasn't been approved yet
21:08:27 <rosmaita> we had a cross project meeting this morning
21:08:39 <rosmaita> the nova people are not dead-set against it
21:08:41 <dansmith> unfortunately, that was at 5:30am my time, so didn't get to join
21:08:55 <rosmaita> yeah, primary person on that is in shanghai
21:09:12 <rosmaita> so, Liang is going to revise both cinder and nova specs
21:09:34 <efried> tonight?
21:09:37 <rosmaita> he's usually pretty quick, and not a lot of new stuff came up in the meeting
21:09:49 <rosmaita> i don't know if he's that quick
21:10:04 <rosmaita> i think we will need to ask for a spec-freeze exception
21:10:14 <rosmaita> (assuming nova does such things)
21:10:50 <rosmaita> i think most of the cinder-side issues are under control
21:11:21 <efried> Okay. I haven't like announced how that works, and dunno if we have a doc for it, but a [nova][sfe] email to the ML seems appropriate for requesting that exception.
21:11:38 <efried> esp because the people who should agree to same are spread across time zones.
21:12:00 <sean-k-mooney> typically we have allowed 1 week to ask for an excetion
21:12:22 <efried> seems like the main cores on the nova side have been gibi and dansmith, with a nod by alex_xu. Are those the right people to collar IYO rosmaita?
21:12:23 <sean-k-mooney> and i think then wanted 3 cores to +2 or have at least 2 sign up to review it
21:12:29 <rosmaita> sean-k-mooney: what's your assessment of the reasonableness of this getting done in U?
21:12:50 <dansmith> I'm definitely not going to approve it so you can just leave me out of it
21:13:07 <rosmaita> yes, you made that clear on the spec review :)
21:13:11 <sean-k-mooney> i need to review it but i felt like it would be a streach to get it done
21:13:19 <sean-k-mooney> if the scope is limited maybe
21:13:32 <sean-k-mooney> move operations seam unlikely
21:13:42 <rosmaita> right
21:13:42 <sean-k-mooney> well live migration
21:13:44 <efried> okay, let's discuss the feasibility via the email thread.
21:14:03 <efried> for now, we'll assume it will need an exception, unless it miraculously gets approved tomorrow.
21:14:09 <rosmaita> ok, i'll work with Liang to get something the ML early next week
21:14:11 <rosmaita> thanks!
21:14:13 <efried> thanks for joining rosmaita.
21:14:22 <efried> next:
21:14:23 <efried> Support re-configure deleted_on_termination in server
21:14:23 <efried> #link blueprint destroy-instance-with-datavolume https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/destroy-instance-with-datavolume
21:14:23 <efried> #link spec Support re-configure deleted_on_termination in server https://review.opendev.org/#/c/580336/
21:14:52 <efried> I can't tell whether brinzhang is still working this, but I'll assume if it hasn't had action by tomorrow it's also deferred.
21:15:33 <efried> anyone have insight?
21:15:38 <efried> If not, I'll move on...
21:15:52 <efried> noVNC requires password authentication
21:15:52 <efried> #link blueprint nova-support-webvnc-with-password-anthentication https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-support-webvnc-with-password-anthentication
21:15:52 <efried> #link spec Proposal for a safer noVNC console with password authentication https://review.opendev.org/#/c/623120/20
21:16:16 <efried> ditto
21:16:24 <efried> anyone have insight?
21:16:35 <efried> Last one:
21:16:36 <efried> nova-audit
21:16:36 <efried> #link blueprint nova-audit https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-audit
21:16:36 <efried> #link Add nova-audit spec https://review.opendev.org/#/c/693226/
21:16:48 <melwitt> I have a little
21:16:59 <efried> on the vnc one?
21:17:03 <melwitt> the use case around the vnc password feature isn't described in much detail on the spec, which raised a lot of questions
21:17:20 <sean-k-mooney> i think the vnc password spec has merrit
21:17:30 <melwitt> no one's opposed to the general idea though and there is some valid use case, but the approach needs to be adjusted before we'd want to approve it
21:17:33 <sean-k-mooney> the usecase is mirroring the behavior of a vnc server to a client
21:17:55 <efried> Okay, great that it has merit and seems doable, but it's going to need someone to own it and drive it.
21:18:01 <sean-k-mooney> where you have to enter a vnc password before the terminal of the guest is exposed
21:18:16 <melwitt> alex_xu had a suggestion for the design that I prefer and the spec has not yet been updated to reflect that. the author said they would update it though if I understood their last reply correctly
21:18:22 <efried> I left a comment that it needs to be revised asap. Otherwise I'll defer.
21:18:25 <efried> okay.
21:18:35 <sean-k-mooney> ya makes sense
21:18:57 <efried> back to nova-audit:
21:18:57 <efried> melwitt has taken ownership, but needs to get support from cores.
21:18:57 <efried> melwitt: comments?
21:19:25 <melwitt> I sent email to some cores to see if there's any interest in their review of it, we'll see if anyone reviews it by EOD tomorrow
21:19:37 <efried> wfm
21:19:49 <efried> any specs or blueprints I missed?
21:20:18 <sean-k-mooney> i missed the start of the meeting did you cover the mixed cpu and numa specs
21:20:38 <sean-k-mooney> if so ill just read scollback
21:20:41 <efried> mixed CPU was approved a couple hours ago. NUMA I mentioned, yes.
21:21:08 <sean-k-mooney> ok cool
21:21:21 <efried> So after today's scrub (where I already deferred several that were/seemed dead) we're at
21:21:21 <efried> 30 total. 24 are Design:Approved, of which 7 are Implemented
21:21:58 <efried> I've been making noise about trying to reduce the scope to a number we actually think we have a good chance of getting done in U.
21:22:20 <efried> I don't remember exactly, but I want to say the number 25 was flying around the ML at some point.
21:22:26 <efried> so, we're really not too far off.
21:22:52 <efried> I'm going to try to crystallize some kind of process/criteria/whatever and kick something off next week.
21:23:15 <efried> In the meantime, if you have thoughts on this, please brain dump in
21:23:15 <efried> #link etherpad for working the scrub https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-ussuri-planning
21:23:46 <efried> Any questions or other subtopics under specs, blueprints, freeze, process thereon, etc?
21:24:12 <efried> okay, moving on.
21:24:13 <efried> #topic PTG/Summit planning
21:24:13 <efried> Please mark **attendance** and topics on
21:24:13 <efried> #link PTG etherpad https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-victoria-ptg
21:24:27 <sean-k-mooney> ok, am to highlight two that you were involved with, with the changes happening at intel will you/intel be able to complete the vtpm and provider yaml spects.
21:25:09 <sean-k-mooney> e.g. may they need some help to get across the line. i can follow up after the meeting
21:25:10 <efried> ah, okay.
21:25:35 <efried> yeah, those two were Definition:Approved a while back, so they haven't been on the spec freeze radar just yet.
21:25:48 <efried> jroll has taken ownership of vTPM.
21:26:10 <efried> he will have to advocate for the Direction:Approval of that blueprint I suppose.
21:26:30 <sean-k-mooney> ok
21:26:47 <efried> Provider yaml is really really close to code-complete, so I think it makes sense to make it go.
21:26:56 <sean-k-mooney> ya
21:27:24 <sean-k-mooney> brb
21:27:29 <efried> I think we're waiting for dustinc to do another rev (I imagine he's primarily looking for a job rn) but if he doesn't, I'm sure we can talk somebody into doing that.
21:27:35 <efried> I would, but I want to retain my +2 power
21:27:45 <efried> but the changes needed are pretty minimal IIRC.
21:28:10 <efried> Moving on:
21:28:10 <efried> #topic Sub/related team Highlights
21:28:10 <efried> Placement (tetsuro)
21:28:56 <efried> There was noise about resurrecting can_split for the NUMA topo bp, but I think we managed to kill that.
21:29:18 <efried> There's some kind of placement API change needed for the shared disk thing, but that's not apparently going to happen in U.
21:29:25 <efried> So that leaves consumer types. melwitt, update there?
21:29:35 <melwitt> I'm still chasing a bug in the consumer types patches. I found what's wrong and now trying to fix (sql query stuff that I'm not good at)
21:30:01 <melwitt> once I fix it, they'll be ready for review again
21:30:28 <efried> melwitt: remind me, is that a dep of something in nova?
21:30:54 <melwitt> it is, it's something we'd need to clean up some quirks in counting quota usage from placement
21:31:07 <efried> cleanup, not a nova bp?
21:31:09 <melwitt> things like being able to take a "delta" of usage in the middle of a resize, etc
21:31:30 <melwitt> I didn't make a nova bp about it yet because it's not a thing until consumer types are available
21:31:37 <sean-k-mooney> its a dep for unifeid limits?
21:31:48 <melwitt> no, it's not a dep for unified limits
21:31:57 <sean-k-mooney> ok
21:32:08 <melwitt> it's a dep for doing things like, stop counting double flavor for a resize that has not been confirmed or reverted yet
21:32:44 <efried> sorry, I guess I'm asking: will whatever needs to get done in nova, that depends on consumer types, require a blueprint (and therefore be Victoria earliest) or not (and therefore conceivably U)?
21:32:45 <sean-k-mooney> ah ok
21:32:49 <melwitt> today we count both the old and new flavor. with consumer types, we'd know how to take the ceiling of the two flavors mid resize
21:33:08 <melwitt> efried: yeah, definitely won't be anything in U for nova. V at the earliest
21:33:15 <efried> okay, cool.
21:33:18 <melwitt> I'm just trying to get the placement side done for U
21:33:25 <efried> yeah, good plan :)
21:33:28 <efried> API (gmann)
21:33:28 <efried> This week update: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012563.html
21:33:40 <gmann> As we can see in email. 4 BPs are ready/in-progress for code review.
21:33:45 <gmann> Other are still on spec review side and few of them are already discussed.
21:33:48 <efried> most of those we discussed earlier.
21:33:50 <efried> yes
21:33:50 <gmann> On Policy work: I did few more API policy changes and up for  review and continuing the rest of the API.
21:34:03 <gmann> While dong policy BP work, I am finding few bugs in policy side. 5 till now which are mainly on admin-or-owner things which is good.
21:34:11 <gmann> that's all from my side.
21:34:14 <efried> thanks gmann
21:34:17 <efried> #topic Stuck Reviews
21:34:17 <efried> any?
21:34:33 <efried> #topic Open discussion
21:34:33 <efried> [efried] PTL transfer
21:35:14 <efried> It's not for sure yet, but it's looking increasingly likely that I will no longer be able to continue as PTL after March 31 at the outside.
21:35:43 <efried> So it's time to start thinking about whether YOU would be willing to take the PTL role for the remainder of the U release.
21:36:36 <efried> Does anyone want to put up their hand at this time?
21:36:39 <efried> Not a commitment, just for my information.
21:36:47 <gmann> FYI next PTL election might be during March(dates are not out yet)
21:36:59 <gmann> or starting april some time
21:37:03 <efried> Hm, that would be an interesting wrinkle.
21:37:13 <efried> okay, good to know.
21:37:24 <efried> So, anyone?
21:37:27 <efried> Bueller?
21:37:54 <efried> okay.
21:38:13 <efried> FYI there's not a real solid process around this, but if I can't find anyone, the TC "gets involved"...
21:38:27 <efried> Any other open topics before we move on?
21:38:34 <gmann> one thing to update on stable gate: stable/rocky|queens should be passing now as stackviz issue is resolved and latest tarball is available for jobs to use. we ca recheck failing one.
21:38:43 <efried> Thanks gmann
21:39:11 <efried> Okay, thanks all.
21:39:11 <efried> o/
21:39:11 <efried> #endmeeting