February 2020 - openstack-discuss

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

[tc][uc][all] Starting community-wide goals ideas for V series
by Ghanshyam Mann 15 Jun '20

15 Jun '20

Hello everyone, We are in R14 week of Ussuri cycle which means It's time to start the discussions about community-wide goals ideas for the V series. 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. We have the Zuulv3 migration goal already accepted and pre-selected for v cycle. If you are interested in proposing a goal, please write down the idea on this etherpad[2] - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-v-series-goals Accordingly, we will start the separate ML discussion over each goal idea. Also, you can refer to the backlogs of community-wide goals from this[3] and ussuri cycle goals[4]. NOTE: TC has defined the goal process schedule[5] to streamlined the process and ready with goals for projects to plan/implement at the start of the cycle. I am hoping to start that schedule for W cycle goals. [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-v-series-goals [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/community-goals [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-u-series-goals [5] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/#goal-selection-schedule -gmann

10 22

[swift] Adding disks - one by one or all lightly weighted?
by Mark Kirkwood 14 May '20

14 May '20

Hi, We are wanting to increase the number of disks in each of our storage nodes - from 4 to 12. I'm wondering whether it is better to: 1/ Add 1st new disk (with a reduced weight)...increase the weight until full, then repeat for next disk etc 2/ Add 'em all with a (much i.e 1/8 of that in 1/ ) reduced weight...increase the weights until done Thoughts? regards Mark

2 2

[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

[manila][ptg] Victoria Cycle PTG in Vancouver - Planning
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Hello Zorillas and other interested Stackers, We've requested space to gather at the Open Infrastructure PTG event in Vancouver, BC between June 8th-11th 2020. This event gives us the opportunity to catch up in person (and via telepresence) and discuss the next set of goals for manila and its ecosystem of projects. As has been the norm, there's now a planning etherpad for us to collect topics and vote upon [1]. Depending on how much space/time we are budgeted, we will select and schedule these topics. Please take a look and add your topics to the etherpad. Thanks, Goutham [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/vancouver-ptg-manila-planning

1 1

Re: [nova][cinder][ops] question/confirmation of legacy vol attachment migration
by Brett Milford 22 Apr '20

22 Apr '20

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:15 PM Gorka Eguileor <geguileo(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On 06/12, Brett Milford wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:54 AM Matt Riedemann <mriedemos(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/17/2019 5:24 AM, Gorka Eguileor wrote: > > > > I stand by my initial recommendation, being able to update the existing > > > > attachment to add the connection information from Nova. > > > > > > OK, thanks for the input and thoughtfulness on this. I've abandoned my > > > change since I'm not going to be pushing this boulder anymore but left > > > notes in the change in case someone else wants to pick it up some day. > > > > > > Note to nova cores: this means we'll have legacy volume attachment > > > compat code around forever. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > Hi Groka, Cinder & Nova devs, > > > > Following up this thread from the context of > > https://review.opendev.org/#/c/579004/ > > > > To summarise the discussion: > > - initialize_connection shouldn't be called more than once, as it > > may mess up some drivers. > > - To (safely) refresh connection_info a new api for cinder is required. > > Hi, > > It may be a new API or a modification of one of the existing ones. > > > > - a patch to nova, such as #579004 could make a call to this new api > > to refresh connection info on events such as reboot. > > > > Is there any other context to this issue I've missed or an alternate > > path to solving this? > > > > Does the creation of a new api for cinder have any implications for > > being able to backport this patch for nova? > > > > I don't think backporting it in Nova would do us much good, since the > Cinder code would not be backportable (it's a new feature, not a bug > fix). > > > > What would be the process for me to kick off this work? > > > > You should propose a Cinder spec [1] for your work and you may provide a > WIP patch to Cinder at the same time, though depending on the review you > may have to completely change that code later. > > Cheers, > Gorka. > > [1]: https://opendev.org/openstack/cinder-specs > > > Thanks for your help, > > Brett (bcm) > > -- > > ❯ brett > > > Cheers Matt, Groka, I thought this might be the case. -- ❯ brett

2 2

[cinder][ops][extended-maintenance-sig][public-cloud-sig][enterprise-wg] Cinder to EOL some branches
by Brian Rosmaita 13 Apr '20

13 Apr '20

This is a courtesy notice that having received no responses to my email of 28 October [0] proposing to EOL some currently open Cinder branches, and following the policy articulated in [1], at today's Virtual PTG meeting the Cinder project team has decided to put the following stable branches into the End of Life state: driverfixes/mitaka driverfixes/newton stable/ocata stable/pike I will submit the paperwork to get this process moving one week from today (2 December 2019). cheers, brian [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-October/010385.… [1] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#end-of-l…

4 8

[all][PTL][release] Call for Ussuri Cycle Highlights
by Kendall Nelson 08 Apr '20

08 Apr '20

Hello Everyone! Its time to start thinking about calling out 'cycle-highlights' in your deliverables! As PTLs, you probably get many pings towards the end of every release cycle by various parties (marketing, management, journalists, etc) asking for highlights of what is new and what significant changes are coming in the new release. By putting them all in the same place it makes them easy to reference because they get compiled into a pretty website like this from the last few releases: Rocky[1], Stein[2], Train[3]. We don't need a fully fledged marketing message, just a few highlights (3-4 ideally), from each project team. Looking through your release notes might be a good place to start. *The deadline for cycle highlights is the end of the R-5 week [4] on April 10th.* How To Reminder: ------------------------- Simply add them to the deliverables/train/$PROJECT.yaml in the openstack/releases repo like this: cycle-highlights: - Introduced new service to use unused host to mine bitcoin. The formatting options for this tag are the same as what you are probably used to with Reno release notes. Also, you can check on the formatting of the output by either running locally: tox -e docs And then checking the resulting doc/build/html/train/highlights.html file or the output of the build-openstack-sphinx-docs job under html/train/ highlights.html. Can't wait to see you all have accomplished this release! Thanks :) -Kendall Nelson (diablo_rojo) [1] https://releases.openstack.org/rocky/highlights.html [2] https://releases.openstack.org/stein/highlights.html [3] https://releases.openstack.org/train/highlights.html [4] htt <https://releases.openstack.org/train/schedule.html#t-cycle-highlights> https://releases.openstack.org/ussuri/schedule.html

2 5

[neutron][OVN] Multiple mechanism drivers
by Sam Morrison 07 Apr '20

07 Apr '20

We are looking at using OVN and are having some issues with it in our ML2 environment. We currently have 2 mechanism drivers in use: linuxbridge and midonet and these work well (midonet is the default tenant network driver for when users create a network) Adding OVN as a third mechanism driver causes the linuxbridge and midonet networks to stop working in terms of CRUD operations etc. It looks as if the OVN driver thinks it’s the only player and is trying to do things on ports that are in linuxbridge or midonet networks. Am I missing something here? (We’re using Stein version) Thanks, Sam

5 6