[release][oslo] FFE request for Oslo Policy
Hi, This is regarding the FFE request for policy for - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/ This is part of introducing scope_type and new defaults in policies. During Nova implemtnation[1], we came across two things to solve before we release the new policies changes: 1. A lot of warnings as policy default are changing which end up filling the logs (226 MB n-api logs today). 2. Give operators an option to switch to the new system (scope and new defaults) at the same time without overwriting the policy file. We discussed those two things to solve via oslo_policy[2] which need FFE approval. Sorry for being late on this which should be planned early. Please let me know if it is ok to include these changes in the Ussuri release. [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/policy-defaults-refresh+(status:open...) [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2... -gmann
---- On Mon, 06 Apr 2020 19:46:53 -0500 Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote ----
Hi,
This is regarding the FFE request for policy for - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/
This is part of introducing scope_type and new defaults in policies. During Nova implemtnation[1], we came across two things to solve before we release the new policies changes: 1. A lot of warnings as policy default are changing which end up filling the logs (226 MB n-api logs today). 2. Give operators an option to switch to the new system (scope and new defaults) at the same time without overwriting the policy file.
Basically two patches, I proposed those separately 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717943/ -gmann
We discussed those two things to solve via oslo_policy[2] which need FFE approval. Sorry for being late on this which should be planned early.
Please let me know if it is ok to include these changes in the Ussuri release.
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/policy-defaults-refresh+(status:open...) [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2...
-gmann
On 4/6/20 10:28 PM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
---- On Mon, 06 Apr 2020 19:46:53 -0500 Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote ----
Hi,
This is regarding the FFE request for policy for - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/
This is part of introducing scope_type and new defaults in policies. During Nova implemtnation[1], we came across two things to solve before we release the new policies changes: 1. A lot of warnings as policy default are changing which end up filling the logs (226 MB n-api logs today). 2. Give operators an option to switch to the new system (scope and new defaults) at the same time without overwriting the policy file.
Basically two patches, I proposed those separately 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717943/
The first of these has already merged. Before I pull the trigger on the second, I want to make sure we're good on the FFE front. Given that these changes can't be backported and are fairly important for usability of the new policy work, I'm in favor of an FFE. Can someone from the release team weigh in too? Thanks.
-gmann
We discussed those two things to solve via oslo_policy[2] which need FFE approval. Sorry for being late on this which should be planned early.
Please let me know if it is ok to include these changes in the Ussuri release.
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/policy-defaults-refresh+(status:open...) [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2...
-gmann
On 20-04-09 11:41:53, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 4/6/20 10:28 PM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
---- On Mon, 06 Apr 2020 19:46:53 -0500 Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote ----
Hi,
This is regarding the FFE request for policy for - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/
This is part of introducing scope_type and new defaults in policies. During Nova implemtnation[1], we came across two things to solve before we release the new policies changes: 1. A lot of warnings as policy default are changing which end up filling the logs (226 MB n-api logs today). 2. Give operators an option to switch to the new system (scope and new defaults) at the same time without overwriting the policy file.
Basically two patches, I proposed those separately 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717943/
The first of these has already merged. Before I pull the trigger on the second, I want to make sure we're good on the FFE front. Given that these changes can't be backported and are fairly important for usability of the new policy work, I'm in favor of an FFE. Can someone from the release team weigh in too? Thanks.
requirements is good with it -- Matthew Thode
> Hi,
> > This is regarding the FFE request for policy for > - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/ > > This is part of introducing scope_type and new defaults in policies. During > Nova implemtnation[1], we came across two things to solve before we release > the new policies changes: > 1. A lot of warnings as policy default are changing which end up filling the logs (226 MB n-api logs today). > 2. Give operators an option to switch to the new system (scope and new defaults) at the same time without overwriting the policy file.
Basically two patches, I proposed those separately 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717943/
The first of these has already merged. Before I pull the trigger on the second, I want to make sure we're good on the FFE front. Given that these changes can't be backported and are fairly important for usability of the new policy work, I'm in favor of an FFE. Can someone from the release team weigh in too? Thanks.
This should be fine from the releases perspective. The more interesting aspect is requirements. Here are the repos that have oslo.policy as a dependency: http://paste.openstack.org/show/791900/ So this impacts a lot more than nova. That said, if the oslo team (I say with my shiny new oslo hat off) is OK with the level of risk this introduces, then it should be fine to do another release. We are two weeks past oslo lib freeze, and one week past non-client lib freeze, so this is getting really late. But if we are going to do it, it should be today so it doesn't end up any later than it already is. Sean
---- On Thu, 09 Apr 2020 15:17:17 -0500 Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmx.com> wrote ----
Hi,
This is regarding the FFE request for policy for - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/
This is part of introducing scope_type and new defaults in
policies. During
Nova implemtnation[1], we came across two things to solve before we release the new policies changes: 1. A lot of warnings as policy default are changing which end up filling the logs (226 MB n-api logs today). 2. Give operators an option to switch to the new system (scope and new defaults) at the same time without overwriting the policy file.
Basically two patches, I proposed those separately 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717879/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/717943/
The first of these has already merged. Before I pull the trigger on the second, I want to make sure we're good on the FFE front. Given that these changes can't be backported and are fairly important for usability of the new policy work, I'm in favor of an FFE. Can someone from the release team weigh in too? Thanks.
This should be fine from the releases perspective. The more interesting aspect is requirements.
Here are the repos that have oslo.policy as a dependency:
http://paste.openstack.org/show/791900/
So this impacts a lot more than nova.
That said, if the oslo team (I say with my shiny new oslo hat off) is OK with the level of risk this introduces, then it should be fine to do another release. We are two weeks past oslo lib freeze, and one week past non-client lib freeze, so this is getting really late. But if we are going to do it, it should be today so it doesn't end up any later than it already is.
Impact on existing behaviour should be none as newly added flags are false by default and until any users explicitly enable those flag they will not get any behaviour changes. -gmann
Sean
participants (4)
-
Ben Nemec
-
Ghanshyam Mann
-
Matthew Thode
-
Sean McGinnis