August 2019 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Re: [openstack-dev] Are we ready to put stable/ocata into extended maintenance mode?
by Alex Schultz 03 Mar '21

03 Mar '21

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:30 PM Alex Schultz <aschultz(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriedemos(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The release page says Ocata is planned to go into extended maintenance mode > > on Aug 27 [1]. There really isn't much to this except it means we don't do > > releases for Ocata anymore [2]. There is a caveat that project teams that do > > not wish to maintain stable/ocata after this point can immediately end of > > life the branch for their project [3]. We can still run CI using tags, e.g. > > if keystone goes ocata-eol, devstack on stable/ocata can still continue to > > install from stable/ocata for nova and the ocata-eol tag for keystone. > > Having said that, if there is no undue burden on the project team keeping > > the lights on for stable/ocata, I would recommend not tagging the > > stable/ocata branch end of life at this point. > > > > So, questions that need answering are: > > > > 1. Should we cut a final release for projects with stable/ocata branches > > before going into extended maintenance mode? I tend to think "yes" to flush > > the queue of backports. In fact, [3] doesn't mention it, but the resolution > > said we'd tag the branch [4] to indicate it has entered the EM phase. > > > > 2. Are there any projects that would want to skip EM and go directly to EOL > > (yes this feels like a Monopoly question)? > > > > I believe TripleO would like to EOL instead of EM for Ocata as > indicated by the thead > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-September/134671.ht… > Bringing this backup to see what we need to do to get the stable/ocata branches ended for the TripleO projects. I'm bringing this up because we have https://review.openstack.org/#/c/647009/ which is for the upcoming rename but CI is broken and we have no interest in continue to keep the stable/ocata branches alive (or fix ci for them). Thanks, -Alex > Thanks, > -Alex > > > [1] https://releases.openstack.org/ > > [2] > > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#maintena… > > [3] > > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#extended… > > [4] > > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20180301-stable-branch-eol.… > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

5 11

[Syntribos] Does anyone still use this?
by Gage Hugo 07 May '20

07 May '20

The Security SIG has recently been looking into updating several sites/documentation and one part we discussed the last couple meetings was the security tools listings[0]. One of the projects listed there, Syntribos, doesn't appear to have much activity[1] outside of zuul/python/docs maintenance and the idea of retiring the project was mentioned. However, there does seem to be an occasional bug-fix submitted, so we are sending this email out to see if anyone is still utilizing Syntribos. If so, please either respond here, reach out to us in the #openstack-security irc channel, or fill out the section in the Security SIG Agenda etherpad[2]. Thanks! [0] https://security.openstack.org/#security-tool-development [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/syntribos [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/security-agenda

2 2

[openstack-ansible] dropping suse support
by Mohammed Naser 05 May '20

05 May '20

Hi everyone, I've been trying to avoid writing this email for the longest time ever. It's really painful to have to reach this state, but I think we've hit a point where we can no longer maintain support for SUSE within OpenStack Ansible. Unfortunately, with the recent layoffs, the OSA team has taken a huge hit in terms of contributors which means that there is far less contributors within the project. This means that we have less resources to go around and it forces us to focus on a more functional, reliable and well tested set of scenarios. Over the past few cycles, there has been effort to add SUSE support to OpenStack Ansible, during the time that we had maintainers, it was great and SUSE issues were being fixed promptly. In addition, due to the larger team at the time, we found ourselves having some extra time where we can help unbreak other gates. Jesse used to call this a "labour of love", which I admired at the time and hoped we continue to do as much as we can of. However, the lack of a committed maintainer for OpenSUSE has resulted in constantly failing jobs[1][2] (which were moved to non-voting, wasting CI resources as no one fixed them). In addition, it's causing several gate blocks for a few times with no one really finding the time to clean them up. We are resource constrained at this point and we need the resource to go towards making the small subset of supported features functional (i.e. CentOS/Ubuntu). We struggle with that enough, and there seems to be no deployers that are running SUSE in real life at the moment based on bugs submitted. With that, I propose that we drop SUSE support this cycle. If anyone would like to volunteer to maintain it, we can review that option, but that would require a serious commitment as we've had maintainers step off and it hurts the velocity of the project as no one can merge code anymore. ..Really wish I didn't have to write this email Mohammed [1]: http://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=openstack-ansible-funct… [2]: http://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=openstack-ansible-funct…

6 9

[nova]review guide for the policy default refresh spec
by Ghanshyam Mann 29 Oct '19

29 Oct '19

Hello Everyone, As many of you might know that in Train, we are doing Nova policy changes to adopt the keystone's new defaults and scope type[1]. There are multiple changes required per policy as mentioned in spec. I am writing this review guide for the patch sequence and at the end how each policy will look like. I have prepared the first set of patches. I would like to get the feedback on those so that we can modify the other policy also on the same line. My plan is to start the other policy work after we merge the first set of policy changes. Patch sequence: Example: os-services API policy: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Cover/Improve the test coverage for existing policies: This will be the first patch. We do not have good test coverage of the policy, current tests are not at all useful and do not perform the real checks. Idea is to add the actual tests coverage for each policy as the first patch. new tests try to access the API with all possible context and check for positive and negative cases. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/669181/ 2. Introduce scope_types: This will add the scope_type for policy. It will be either 'system', 'project' or 'system and project'. In the same patch, along with existing test working as it is, new tests of scope type will be added which will run with [oslo_policy] enforce_scope=True so that we can capture the real scope checks. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/645427/ 3. Add new default roles: This will add new defaults which can be SYSTEM_ADMIN, SYSTEM_READER, PROJECT_MEMBER_OR_SYSTEM_ADMIN, PROJECT_READER_OR_SYSTEM_READER etc depends on Policy. Test coverage of new defaults, as well as deprecated defaults, are covered in same patch. This patch will add the granularity in policy if needed. Without policy granularity, we cannot add new defaults per rule. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/648480/ (I need to add more tests for deprecated rules) 4. Pass actual Targets in policy: This is to pass the actual targets in context.can(). Main goal is to remove the defaults targets which is nothing but context'user_id,project_id only. It will be {} if no actual target data needed in check_str. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676688/ Patch sequence: Example: Admin Action API policy: 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657698/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657823/ 3. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676682/ 4. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/663095/ There are other patches I have posted in between for common changes or fix or framework etc. [1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/train/approved/polic… -gmann

1 2

[metrics] [telemetry] [stein] cpu_util
by Budai Laszlo 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

Hello all, the release release announce of ceilometer rocky is deprecating the cpu_util and *.rate metrics "* cpu_util and *.rate meters are deprecated and will be removed in future release in favor of the Gnocchi rate calculation equivalent." so we don't have them in Stein. Can you direct me to some document that describes how to achieve these with Gnocchi rate calculation? Thank you, Laszlo

5 4

[aodh] [heat] Stein: How to create alarms based on rate metrics like CPU utilization?
by Bernd Bausch 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

Prior to Stein, Ceilometer issued a metric named /cpu_util/, which I could use to trigger alarms and autoscaling when CPU utilization was too high. cpu_util doesn't exist anymore. Instead, we are asked to use Gnocchi's /rate/ feature. However, when using rates, alarms on a group of resources require more parameters than just one metric: Both an aggregation and a reaggregation method are needed. For example, a group of instances that implement "myapp": gnocchi measures aggregation -m cpu --reaggregation mean --aggregation rate:mean --query server_group=myapp --resource-type instance Actually, this command uses a deprecated API (but from what I can see, Aodh still uses it). The new way is like this: gnocchi aggregates --resource-type instance '(aggregate rate:mean (metric cpu mean))' server_group=myapp If rate:mean is in the archive policy, it also works the other way around: gnocchi aggregates --resource-type instance '(aggregate mean (metric cpu rate:mean))' server_group=myapp Without reaggregation, I get quite unexpected numbers, including negative CPU rates. If you want to understand why, see this discussion with one of the Gnocchi maintainers [1]. *My problem*: Aodh allows me to set an aggregation method, but not a reaggregation method. How can I create alarms based on rates? The problem extends to Heat and autoscaling. Thanks much, Bernd. [1] https://github.com/gnocchixyz/gnocchi/issues/1044

4 3

[all] [tc] [docs] [release] [ptls] Docs as SIG: Ownership of docs.openstack.org
by Alexandra Settle 03 Oct '19

03 Oct '19

Hi all, Quick recap: The documentation team is set to disband as an official project, and make the leap to becoming a SIG (Special Interest Group). This decision is not one we have made lightly, but with the changes of direction since Pike (project documentation belonging with the projects, etc) the need for a centralised documentation team as an official project is no longer integral to producing the software. The transition of the docs team to a SIG has already begun [1] and [2]. The openstackdocstheme, openstack-doc-tools, os-api-ref and whereto have been placed within the remit of the Oslo team and approved. The remaining individuals working on the docs team are sorting through what's left and where it is best placed. In [1], Doug has rightfully pointed out that whilst the documentation team as it stands today is no longer "integral", the docs.openstack.org web site is. An owner is required. The suggestion is for the Release Management team is the "least worst" (thanks, tonyb) place for the website manaagement to land. As Tony points out, this requires learning new tools and processes but the individuals working on the docs team currently have no intention to leave, and are around to help manage this from the SIG. Open to discussion and suggestions, but to summarise the proposal here: docs.openstack.org ownership is to transition to be the responsibility of the Release Management team officially provided there are no strong objections. Thanks, Alex IRC: asettle [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657142/ [2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/657141/

5 11

[kolla-ansible] migration
by Ignazio Cassano 02 Oct '19

02 Oct '19

Hello, Anyone have tried to migrate an existing openstack installation to kolla containers? Thanks Ignazio

5 16

[tc][uc][all] Starting goal selection for U series
by Ghanshyam Mann 25 Sep '19

25 Sep '19

Hello everyone, We are in R10 week of Train cycle and not so far from the start of U cycle. It's time to start the discussions about community-wide goals ideas for the U series. We are little late to start this thread for U series which usually happened during Summit Forum. But it is not mandatory to wait for f2f meetup to kick off the goal discussions, we can always start the same via ML or ad-hoc meetings. During Shanghai Summit Forum, we will be having the f2f discussion for U (continue the discussion from ML threads) as well as V cycle goals ideas. Community-wide goals are important in term of solving and improving a technical area across OpenStack as a whole. It has lot more benefits to be considered from users as well from a developers perspective. See [1] for more details about community-wide goals and process. Also, you can refer to the backlogs of community-wide goals from this[2] and train cycle goals[3]. If you are interested in proposing a goal, please write down the idea on this etherpad[4] - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-u-series-goals Accordingly, we will start the separate ML discussion over each goal idea. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/community-goals [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BER-t-series-goals [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-u-series-goals -gmann

1 1

[nova][glance][entropy][database] update glance metadata for nova instance
by Jordan Ansell 11 Sep '19

11 Sep '19

Hi Openstack Discuss, I have an issue with nova not synchronizing changes between a glance image and it's local image meta information in nova. I have updated a glance image with the property "hw_rng_model=virtio", and that successfully passes that to new instances created using the updated image. However existing instances do not receive this new property. I have located the image metadata within the nova database, in the **instance_system_metadata** table, and can see it's not updated for the existing instances, and only adding the relevant rows for instances that are created when that property is present. The key being "image_hw_rng_model" and "virtio" being the value. Is there a way to tell nova to update the table for existing instances, and synchronizing the two databases? Or is this the kind of thing that would need to be done *shudder* manually...? If so, are there any experts out there who can point me to some documentation on doing this correctly before I go butcher a couple of dummy nova database? Regards, Jordan

3 4

[nova][keystone][neutron][kuryr][requirements] breaking tests with new library versions
by Matthew Thode 10 Sep '19

10 Sep '19

NOVA: lxml===4.4.1 nova tests fail https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1838666 websockify===0.9.0 tempest test failing KEYSTONE: oauthlib===3.1.0 keystone https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1839393 NEUTRON: tenacity===5.1.1 https://2c976b5e9e9a7bed9985-82d79a041e998664bd1d0bc4b6e78332.ssl.cf2.rackc… this could be caused by pytest===5.1.0 as well KURYR: kubernetes===10.0.1 openshift PINS this, only kuryr-tempest-plugin deps on it https://review.opendev.org/665352 MISC: tornado===5.1.1 salt is cauing this, no eta on fix (same as the last year) stestr===2.5.0 needs merged https://github.com/mtreinish/stestr/pull/265 jsonschema===3.0.2 see https://review.opendev.org/649789 I'm trying to get this in place as we are getting closer to the requirements freeze (sept 9th-13th). Any help clearing up these bugs would be appreciated. -- Matthew Thode

7 18

[mistral] Publish field in workflow tasks
by Ali Abdelal 09 Sep '19

09 Sep '19

Hello, Currently, there are two "publish" fields, one in the task(regular "publish")-the scope is branch and not global, and another under "on-success", “on-error” or “on-complete”. In the current behavior, regular "publish" is ignored if there is "publish" under "on-success", “on-error” or “on-complete” [1]. For example:- (a) version: '2.0' wf1: tasks: t1: publish: res_x1: 1 on-success: publish: branch: res_x2: 2 (b) version: '2.0' wf2: tasks: t1: publish: res_x1: 1 "res_x1" won't be published in (a), but it will in (b). We can either:- 1) Invalidate such syntax. 2) Merge the two publishes together and if there are duplicate keys, there are two options:- a) What takes priority is what's in publish under "on-success" or “on-error” or “on-complete. b) Not allow having a duplicate. What is your opinion? And please tell us if you have other suggestions. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/mistral/+bug/1791449

2 1

[all][tc] PDF Community Goal Update
by Akihiro Motoki 06 Sep '19

06 Sep '19

Hi all, I would like to share the status of the PDF community goal. We made great progresses these two weeks. Highlights ---------- It is time for working on the PDF community goal in your project! - openstack-tox-docs job supports PDF build now. AJaeger and I worked on the job support of PDF doc build and publishing and have completed it. - We confirmed PDF build with the sphinx latex builder works for several major projects like nova, cinder and neutron. The approach with the latex builder should work for most projects. - First PDF doc is now published from the i18n project. How to get started ------------------ - "How to get started" section in the PDF goal etherpad [1] explains the minimum steps. You can find useful examples there too. - To build PDF docs locally, you need to install LaTex related packages. See "To test locally" in the etherpad [1]. - If you hit problems during PDF build, check the common problems etherpad [2]. We are collecting knowledges there. - If you have questions, feel free to ask #openstack-doc IRC channel. Also Please sign up your name to "Project volunteers" in [1]. Useful links ------------ [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/train-pdf-support-goal [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/pdf-goal-train-common-problems [3] Ongoing reviews: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:build-pdf-docs+(status:open+OR+status:… Thanks, Akihiro Motoki (amotoki)

9 15

[tripleo] Proposing Damien Ciabrini as core on TripleO/HA
by Michele Baldessari 06 Sep '19

06 Sep '19

Hi all, Damien (dciabrin on IRC) has always been very active in all HA things in TripleO and I think it is overdue for him to have core rights on this topic. So I'd like to propose to give him core permissions on any HA-related code in TripleO. Please vote here and in a week or two we can then act on this. Thanks, -- Michele Baldessari <michele(a)acksyn.org> C2A5 9DA3 9961 4FFB E01B D0BC DDD4 DCCB 7515 5C6D

16 15

[keystone][edge] Edge Hacking Days - August 16
by Ildiko Vancsa 04 Sep '19

04 Sep '19

Hi, It is a friendly reminder that we are having the second edge hacking days in August this Friday (August 16). The dial-in information is the same, you can find the details here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/osf-edge-hacking-days If you’re interested in joining please __add your name and the time period (with time zone) when you will be available__ on these dates. You can also add topics that you would be interested in working on. We will keep on working on two items: * Keystone to Keystone federation testing in DevStack * Building the centralized edge reference architecture on Packet HW using TripleO Please let me know if you have any questions. See you on Friday! :) Thanks, Ildikó

1 1

[Horizon] [stable] Adding Radomir Dopieralski to horizon-stable-maint
by Ivan Kolodyazhny 03 Sep '19

03 Sep '19

Hi team, I'd like to propose adding Radomir Dopieralski to the horizon-stable-maint team. He's doing good quality reviews for stable branches [1] on a regular basis and I think Radomir will be a good member of our small group. [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/reviewer:openstack%2540sheep.art.pl+NOT+bran… Regards, Ivan Kolodyazhny, http://blog.e0ne.info/

2 2

[keystone] Weekly meeting for September 3rd 2019
by Morgan Fainberg 03 Sep '19

03 Sep '19

As of this time, we are planning to skip the keystone weekly meeting for 2019-09-03. This is to allow for work to continue with less interruption as well as US-based folks who have Labor Day (2019-09-02 this year) off to continue to make progress in light of the abbreviated week. As always, please feel free to join us on irc (freenode) in #openstack-keystone if you have any questions. I am also available (irc nic: kmalloc ). Cheers, --Morgan

1 1

[tc] Gradually reduce TC to 11 members over 2020
by Thierry Carrez 03 Sep '19

03 Sep '19

Hi everyone, The size of the TC is a trade-off between getting enough community representation and keeping enough members engaged and active. The current size (13 members) was defined by in 2013, as we moved from 5 directly-elected seats + all PTLs (which would have been 14 people) to a model that could better cope with our explosive growth. Since then, 13 has worked well, to ensure that new blood could come in at every cycle. I would argue that today, there are far less need to get wide representation in the TC (we are pretty aligned), and less difficulty to enter the TC (there is more turnover). In 2019 OpenStack, 13 members is a rather large group. It is becoming difficult to find 13 people able to commit to a significant amount of time over the coming year. And it is difficult to keep all those 13 members active and engaged. IMHO it is time to reduce the TC to 11 members, which sounds like a more reasonable and manageable size. We should encourage people to stop for a while and come back, rather than burn too many people at the same time. We should encourage more people to watch from the sidelines, rather than have a group so large that everyone that can be in it is in it. This would not be a big-bang change, just something we would gradually put in place over the next year. My strawman plan would be as follows: - Sept. 2019 election: no change, elect 6 seats as planned - Feb. 2020 election: elect 6 seats instead of 7 - Sept. 2020 election: elect 5 seats instead of 6 - Then elect 6 seats at every start-of-year and 5 at every end-of-year That would result in TC membership sizes: - U cycle (Q4 2019/Q1 2020): 13 members - V cycle (Q2/Q3 2020): 12 members - W cycle (Q4 2020/Q1 2021): 11 members - after that: 11 members FWIW, I intend to not run for reelection in the Feb 2020 election, so nobody else has to sacrifice their seat to that reform for that election :) Thoughts? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

13 18

[tc] not seeking reelection
by Lance Bragstad 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

Hi all, Now that the nomination period is open for TC candidates, I'd like to say that I won't be running for a second term on the TC. My time on the TC has enriched my understanding of open-source communities and I appreciate all the time people put into helping me get up-to-speed. I wish the best of luck to folks putting their hat in the ring this week! Thanks all, Lance

5 4

[tc][elections] Not seeking re-election to TC
by Julia Kreger 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

Greetings everyone, I wanted to officially let everyone know that I will not be running for re-election to the TC. I have enjoyed serving on the TC for the past two years. Due to some changes in my personal and professional lives, It will not be possible for me to serve during this next term. Thanks everyone! -Julia

8 7

[tc][elections] Not running for reelection to TC this term
by Jeremy Stanley 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

I've been on the OpenStack Technical Committee continuously for several years, and would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the community for their support and for the honor of being chosen to represent you. I plan to continue participating in the community, including in TC-led activities, but am stepping back from reelection this round for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provide others with an opportunity to serve our community on the TC. I hope that by standing aside for now, others will be encouraged to run. A regular influx of fresh opinions helps us maintain the requisite level of diversity to engage in productive debate. Second, the scheduling circumstances for this election, with the TC and PTL activities combined, will be a bit more complicated for our election officials. I'd prefer to stay engaged in officiating so that we can ensure it goes as smoothly for everyone a possible. To do this without risking a conflict of interest, I need to not be running for office. It's quite possible I'll run again in 6 months, but for now I'm planning to help behind the scenes instead. Best of luck to all who decide to run for election to any of our leadership roles! -- Jeremy Stanley

9 8

not running for the TC this term
by Doug Hellmann 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

Since nominations open this week, I wanted to go ahead and let you all know that I will not be seeking re-election to the Technical Committee this term. My role within Red Hat has been changing over the last year, and while I am still working on projects related to OpenStack it is no longer my sole focus. I will still be around, but it is better for me to make room on the TC for someone with more time to devote to it. It’s hard to believe it has been 6 years since I first joined the Technical Committee. So much has happened in our community in that time, and I want to thank all of you for the trust you have placed in me through it all. It has been an honor to serve and help build the community. Thank you, Doug

8 7

[oslo] Proposing Gabriele Santomaggio as oslo.messaging core
by Ben Nemec 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

Hello Norsk, It is my pleasure to propose Gabriele Santomaggio (gsantomaggio) as a new member of the oslo.messaging core team. He has been contributing to the project for about a cycle now and has gotten up to speed on our development practices. Oh, and he wrote the book on RabbitMQ[0]. :-) Obviously we think he'd make a good addition to the core team. If there are no objections, I'll make that happen in a week. Thanks. -Ben 0: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9781849516501.do

7 7

[ptl][cinder] U Cycle PTL Non-Candidacy ...
by Jay Bryant 02 Sep '19

02 Sep '19

All, I just wanted to communicate that I am not going to be running for another term as Cinder's PTL. It has been an honor to lead the Cinder team for the last two years. When I started working with OpenStack nearly 6 years ago, leading the Cinder team was one of my goals and I appreciate the team trusting me with this responsibility for the last 4 cycles. I have enjoyed watching the project evolve over the last couple of years, going from a focus on getting new features in place to a focus on ensuring that customers get reliable storage management with an ever improving user experience. Cinder's value in the storage community outside of OpenStack has been validated as other SDS solutions have leveraged it to provide storage management for the many vendors that Cinder supports. Cinder continues to grow by adding things like cinderlib, making it relevant not only in virtualized environments but also for containerized environments. I am glad that I have been able to help this evolution happen. As PTLs have done in the past, it is time for me to pursue other opportunities in the OpenStack ecosystem and hand over the reigns to a new leader. Cinder has a great team and will continue to do great things. Fear not, I am not going to go anywhere, I plan to continue to stay active in Cinder for the foreseeable future. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be Cinder's PTL, it has been a great ride! Sincerely, Jay Bryant (irc: jungleboyj)

3 2

[nova] Status of the bp support-move-ops-with-qos-ports
by Balázs Gibizer 31 Aug '19

31 Aug '19

Hi, As feature freeze is closing in I try to raise awareness of the implementation status of the support-move-ops-with-qos-ports<https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:ma…> bp [1]. The original goal of the bp was to support every move operations (cold migrate, resize, live-migrate, evacuate, unshelve). Today I have ready and tested (unit + functional) patches proposed for cold migrate and resize [2]. I don't think every move operations will be ready and merged in Train but I still hope that there is a chance for cold migrate and resize to land. Sure I will continue working on supporting the operations that miss the Train in the U release. One possible complication in the current patch series is that it proposes the necessary RPC changes for _every_ move operations [3]. This might not be what we want to merge in Train if only cold migrate and resize support fill fit. So I see two possible way forwards: a) Others also feel that cold migrate and resize will fit into Train, and then I will quickly change [3] to only modify those RPCs. b) We agree to postpone the whole series to U. Then I will not spend too much time on reworking [3] in the Train timeframe. A connected topic: I proposed patches [4] to add cold migrate and resize tempest coverage to the nova-grenade-multinode (renamed from nova-grenade-live-migrate) job as Matt pointed out in [3] that we don't have such coverage and that my original change in [3] would have broken a mixed-compute-version deployment. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers, gibi [1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/train/approved/suppo… [2] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/support-move-ops-with-qos-ports [3] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/655721 [4] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679210

4 5