21:00:14 <timburke> #startmeeting swift
21:00:15 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May 27 21:00:14 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is timburke. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:16 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:18 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'swift'
21:00:20 <timburke> who's here for the swift meeting?
21:00:33 <alecuyer> hello!
21:00:35 <seongsoocho> o/
21:00:43 <mattoliverau> o/
21:00:45 <tdasilva> hi
21:01:15 <kota_> hi
21:01:52 <clayg> o/
21:02:10 <timburke> as usual, the meeting agenda's at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Swift
21:02:14 <timburke> #topic PTG
21:02:19 <timburke> it's next week!
21:02:41 <clayg> 🤯
21:03:24 <timburke> we've got time booked for a zoom room, though it looks like we could also use https://meetpad.opendev.org/swift-ptg-victoria whenever without needing to worry about scheduling conflicts
21:04:15 <mattoliverau> Cool
21:04:38 <timburke> it there are any other topics we ought to discuss, write them down on the etherpad
21:04:41 <timburke> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/swift-ptg-victoria
21:05:14 <timburke> i'm looking forward to seeing everyone, even remotely :-)
21:05:39 <alecuyer> yeah :)
21:05:43 <kota_> :D
21:06:23 <timburke> #topic more tests in swift-dsvm jobs
21:06:52 <timburke> so i've been playing with our gate tests a bit lately
21:07:44 <timburke> and i've managed to get the number of skips down from like 350 to 20
21:08:24 <clayg> timburke: nice work!
21:08:59 <timburke> but i've got a question: does anyone actually want to bother reviewing that? or should i just go ahead and self-approve as things get to passing?
21:09:47 <timburke> (still using good judgment, of course; if something seems to be getting out of hand, i'll raise a flag and ask for review)
21:09:51 <clayg> 🤔
21:12:17 <clayg> land that shit!
21:12:19 <tdasilva> i'm ok with self-approve, but also feel free to ping me if you want a double-check of a patch
21:12:40 <mattoliverau> It's testing code and your making it better, I say for now land it :)
21:13:15 <mattoliverau> If it starts making the gate fail then we can rethink
21:13:33 <timburke> fwiw, the long-term goal is for us to be able to drop some of the func test variations -- it seems silly to run a whole other job just to check that staticweb works, for example, when we could do it all at once *and* verify that it works with keystone
21:14:41 <timburke> the main variations we'd want to keep (i think) would be more backend-focused: replica vs ec, encrypted vs not, py2 vs py3
21:15:52 <timburke> ok, sounds like people are generally on board with landing them and making our testing better :-)
21:16:04 <timburke> #topic py2 and dsvm
21:16:12 <timburke> speaking of the dsvm job...
21:16:36 <timburke> i just realized that our py2/py3 dsvm variations stopped being different
21:17:02 <timburke> i proposed https://review.opendev.org/#/c/731318/ to drop it down to just ipv6 vs not
21:17:02 <patchbot> patch 731318 - swift - Remove swift-dsvm-functional-py3 job - 1 patch set
21:17:52 <timburke> devstack dropped support for installing packages on py2 back in https://github.com/openstack/devstack/commit/6b6bdc711
21:18:04 <timburke> (so, october)
21:19:02 <kota_> wow
21:19:04 <clayg> nice catch
21:19:11 <timburke> the question is: do we care? do we want to invest in maintaining a gate job that runs swift under py2 and keystone under py3?
21:20:20 <clayg> ouch - that's a tough one
21:20:45 <clayg> to be clear we're talking about doing work to get back something we lost in October and haven't noticed till now
21:20:51 <clayg> did we notice because something broke?
21:20:51 <timburke> or do we say, "to the best of our knowledge, this still works -- we'll fix bugs you report if it doesn't" ?
21:21:00 <timburke> swift on py2 should certainly still get tested, of course -- but the interaction with keystone hasn't been exercised for a while now
21:21:09 <clayg> aka "keep doing what's already happening; but on purpose"
21:21:31 <clayg> oic, the dsvm job is specific to keystone - that's significant
21:21:38 <clayg> and we ARE testing py3 swift + keystone 🤔
21:21:48 <timburke> clayg, no, i noticed it (or rather, takashi pointed it out) while i was trying to get a comparable configuration going for storlets
21:22:02 <clayg> and shops that are deploying modern keystone are already running some kind of py3?  like... does keystone still test with py2 (like we do; just not in dsvm jobs)
21:22:19 <clarkb> clayg: no I don't think it does
21:23:02 <timburke> and of course, i'd expect it to *not work on py2* in the very near future
21:23:05 <clayg> timburke: and we wouldn't be able to test a "swift + keystone on py2" setup - it'd be "py3 and keystone; but somehow still swift on py2"
21:23:16 <timburke> yup
21:23:32 <timburke> similar to what we used to be able to do with devstack
21:23:45 <clayg> ok, i'm pretty sure I'm advocating for not trying to
21:24:13 <timburke> tho... maybe we could do everybody on py2 if we took keystone from a stable branch... 🤔
21:24:45 <clayg> that might be a more reasonable scenario to test - but also possibly still low value
21:25:18 <clayg> shops that are having a hard time getting off py2 (like us!) are probably already pretty leary of upgrades as projects are dropping py2 support
21:29:11 <timburke> kota_, alecuyer, mattoliverau, rledisez what are your thoughts? i feel like clayg and i will be very easily convinced to just drop it ;-)
21:29:47 <clayg> i hate coming down on the side of "do the work" unless i'm going to do the work - i'm not going to do the work in this case
21:30:04 <alecuyer> timburke: I think that sounds reasonable
21:30:37 <clayg> alecuyer: fwiw, aren't you guys on py2 + keystone?
21:30:44 <alecuyer> we are
21:30:44 <kota_> reasonable
21:31:12 <alecuyer> But I think the plan is to switch to py3 for both in a short window
21:31:21 <mattoliverau> I'm leaning on the side of dropping as every distro tends to be dropping py2 anyway. ie focus on py3 and make sure that's working. But can understand legecy users.
21:31:58 <mattoliverau> happy to have it to support OVH and swiftstack/nvidia users tho.
21:32:13 <timburke> all right. sounds like we'll let it go, then
21:32:42 <timburke> alecuyer, that reminds me, we still need to address https://bugs.launchpad.net/swift/+bug/1872553 :-(
21:32:42 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1872553 in OpenStack Object Storage (swift) "fallocate_reserve is still broken on py3" [Undecided,New]
21:33:18 <alecuyer> ohh right the fallocate % :/
21:34:00 <timburke> something we can hack on next week ;-)
21:34:11 <alecuyer> yes :)
21:34:14 <timburke> that's all i had
21:34:19 <timburke> #topic lots of small files
21:34:31 <timburke> alecuyer, i saw another patchset for the new key format!
21:35:28 <alecuyer> Yes it's going slowly :/ So I have no real news, but that slow progress is for lack of time, and we will keep working on it, we will need that for future hardware
21:36:50 <timburke> got it, no worries
21:36:58 <timburke> #topic open discussion
21:37:08 <timburke> what else should we talk about today?
21:37:26 <timburke> no normal meeting next week, for obvious reasons
21:40:14 <timburke> all right, let's let kota_, mattoliverau, and seongsoocho start their morning ;-)
21:40:25 <timburke> thank you all for coming, and thank you for working on swift!
21:40:28 <kota_> thx
21:40:29 <alecuyer> thanks tim
21:40:30 <seongsoocho> see u next week!
21:40:36 <timburke> \o/
21:40:38 <timburke> #endmeeting