- Openstack-stable-maint - lists.openstack.org

Controversial backport
by Ihar Hrachyshka 19 Aug '14

19 Aug '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, we have a Neutron backport proposed in stable/havana that is in grey area in terms of applicability for stable branches. Located at [1]. The controversy is that it changes the default value of a configuration setting, which is generally considered as a no-go for backports. That said, it has additional aspects that may trigger the exception. Basically, the default value of the setting breaks all L3 agents we have in our tree. The failure state is an unstoppable agent resync due to incorrect gateway outside of subnet. To avoid the failure for any L3 agent that we ship, users need to change the value of that setting from default one. It's also not clear what's the value of having a gateway outside the current subnet. As of Juno, this 'feature' is obsolete and marked to be removed in Kilo. There is a change though that there are some third-party agents in the wild that support that 'feature'; in that case, changing the default value will affect them. Though we don't know whether they really exist. All in all, the 'feature' won't be available for them since Kilo, and there is no sign that its removal is controversial, so probably no one is interested in it anyway. So we have a dilemma: we may break the official stable rule of 'not introducing inconmpatible configuration changes' and in that way fix major failure scenario in Neutron; or we may leave everything as-is (=our own agents broken) to stick to the rule. My common sense tells me that we should fix our agents first, and then think about potential third-party L3 agents that possibly rely on that 'feature' being enabled by default. Hence my +2 vote. But your common sense may vary, so I'd like to hear from others on the matter. [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113129/ /Ihar -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJT8wzoAAoJEC5aWaUY1u578HAH/0DB3+IpYWjKbwo9th3Phaf/ EvQEON2tMA177ufdgzO3KsWdx8VJxNzFfHU6Jl8aY9GQ3NYsg+5QYOJPcX0hHg4t g3yfrcUybDZ9roqzHZNYOUddm10Te7a+Q4Ykj2X2QiqEZC/VpxudRYDGU5O5cDpg sNeFltCp/vb/oGfX/E5dxdF5hzGd1sJQvDs+0jXfLghaCmNITvLFELN56JsUFxvr ZuzNxCnyvL7iJSHA+vWiG36jZCF/dR4eYly2CpRaQJ2Fp6ObVvkWCv+U+wtv+5bm TYl8PHpDmmGOlJPaBQn7OXAGc5eQZnkBwXGDxhRl6Fi9JF2fRSV0blSZl4rwpEA= =lxWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 10

The order of master patches and stable backports
by Ihar Hrachyshka 19 Aug '14

19 Aug '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, I'm concerned that in some cases [1] we merge patches in stable branches before they reach master. My understanding is that in general such approach may lead to multiple kinds of issues: 1. if a master patch is not merged in the end due to negative review feedback, we will need to cope with a stable-only patch. 2. if a master patch is modified later before its merge, we need to cope with the need to apply last minute modifications to stable branches. In the worst cases, the difference won't even be noticed, and we'll result in unneeded differences between master and stable code. 3. also, if a patch is merged into e.g. havana and not icehouse, and then a user upgrades to icehouse, he will see a regression due to the missing patch that was once fixed in a prev-stable release. We could say that there are some cases where the strict ordering of backports is not applicable, like in [1]. Quoting Thierry, " @Ihar: stable branch changes come in two categories. There are project bugfixes (which are straight backports of stuff that has to land in master to ensure we have no regression) and infrastructure patches (to keep the test infrastructure working on stable branches). The latter do NOT have to land in master: in most cases, they are not even applicable there. This is basically a branch-specific infrastructure patch to keep the stable branch running. The fact that it has a master "equivalent" is more of a coincidence. Not having that patch in master wouldn't be a regression. To answer your question, if the patch has to be reworked, that would result in subsequent patchsets. " So some cases are not affected by problem (3), but still, (1) and (2) apply. I understand that in some cases we should not wait for long, like security fixes or infrastructure being broken right now. Though the case in question is not the latter (the infrastructure will become broken only if infra team enables latest tox without making sure all the branches are properly patched). So I think the following quote by Sean is not correct: "stable/* is going to be horribly broken if this doesn't land. We could let all the stable branches die, but I don't think that's sane." ...and hence, the rush with which we're pushing those patches into stable branches is not justified. I would like to hear from all of you on the matter, and I'm going to update our stable workflow rules based on your feedback. Comments? [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109750/ /Ihar -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJT5H1TAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57pOAH/2xFM3aC6J2juFGth4Z6bPsV le0gjz7bWl1KyTgyBBkD0LsZbkOg1UdKL5Vrg5Ua4iT0j2NP+Q6QCy/AuR94cGko v5n1AuQm8YQxB1wQAmuG8xG2YAHtiX7gx/5Kw/kIZgkVdd8UHQXp28dBwu9td1+k TLo7MfJ7jde/BAlB6OLCrPC7yctog4xANrZOYw3u2tzVqh4YK7o67QceAVKcNIW6 EgVTSF+f6SyzJYMHKB58kusLFMmmNQDCdL0/gqoJ3qgPMA5ASh6ZjXzFfVggR5pT UnqEJ+0yN47RzRWaH6KlAhhVDW7EwKJwgvlggr8dwnA7ei/TYDWqunsEQ4Wcbmk= =JXuG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 3

Re: [Openstack-stable-maint] [openstack-dev] stable/havana jobs failing due to keystone bug 1357652
by Alan Pevec 18 Aug '14

18 Aug '14

2014-08-17 18:30 GMT+02:00 Nathan Kinder <nkinder(a)redhat.com>: > This requirement change was backported for stable/icehouse: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112337/ > It seems like the right thing to do is to propose a similar change for > stable/havana instead of reverting the keystoneclient change. We had similar issue last month, it's due to fact we test master clients against stable releases of services. Change is appropriate for stable because it changes test requirements, not runtime deps for the project itself: https://review.openstack.org/106974 Cheers, Alan

2 4

Re: [Openstack-stable-maint] [openstack-dev] stable/havana jobs failing due to keystone bug 1357652
by Matt Riedemann 18 Aug '14

18 Aug '14

On 8/17/2014 11:30 AM, Nathan Kinder wrote: > > > On 08/17/2014 09:18 AM, Nathan Kinder wrote: >> >> >> On 08/17/2014 09:08 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: >>> I'm seeing some nova stable/havana patches failing consistently on >>> keystone bug 1357652 [1], keystone won't start due to an import error. >>> >>> I'm not seeing any recent changes for keystone in stable/havana so not >>> sure if this is an infra issue or something else. >> >> I saw this too on Friday. I believe that it's related to a new >> keystoneclient requirement for oslo.utils, which isn't in >> requirements.txt for keystone. The change either needs to be reverted, >> or a requirement needs to be added to satisfy the dependency (which may >> not be appropriate for stable releases). > > This requirement change was backported for stable/icehouse: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112337/ > > It seems like the right thing to do is to propose a similar change for > stable/havana instead of reverting the keystoneclient change. > >> >> -NGK >> >>> >>> I'm also not seeing the hits in logstash for some reason, which is odd. >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1357652 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > I've got a series of backports to global-requirements for stable/havana here [1]. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/requirements… -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann

1 0

stable/havana jobs failing due to keystone bug 1357652
by Matt Riedemann 18 Aug '14

18 Aug '14

I'm seeing some nova stable/havana patches failing consistently on keystone bug 1357652 [1], keystone won't start due to an import error. I'm not seeing any recent changes for keystone in stable/havana so not sure if this is an infra issue or something else. I'm also not seeing the hits in logstash for some reason, which is odd. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1357652 -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann

1 1

Stable check of openstack/tempest failed
by jenkins＠openstack.org 17 Aug '14

17 Aug '14

Build failed. - periodic-tempest-dsvm-full-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-tempest-dsvm-full-havana… : FAILURE in 9m 06s - periodic-tempest-dsvm-neutron-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-tempest-dsvm-neutron-hav… : FAILURE in 9m 42s - periodic-tempest-dsvm-postgres-full-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-tempest-dsvm-postgres-fu… : FAILURE in 8m 58s

2 1

Stable check of openstack/keystone failed
by jenkins＠openstack.org 17 Aug '14

17 Aug '14

Build failed. - periodic-keystone-docs-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-keystone-docs-havana/40a… : SUCCESS in 3m 43s - periodic-keystone-python26-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-keystone-python26-havana… : FAILURE in 10m 59s - periodic-keystone-python27-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-keystone-python27-havana… : FAILURE in 14m 25s

1 0

Stable check of openstack/tempest failed
by jenkins＠openstack.org 17 Aug '14

17 Aug '14

Build failed. - periodic-tempest-dsvm-full-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-tempest-dsvm-full-havana… : FAILURE in 10m 14s - periodic-tempest-dsvm-neutron-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-tempest-dsvm-neutron-hav… : FAILURE in 9m 37s - periodic-tempest-dsvm-postgres-full-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-tempest-dsvm-postgres-fu… : FAILURE in 8m 55s

1 0

Stable check of openstack/keystone failed
by jenkins＠openstack.org 16 Aug '14

16 Aug '14

Build failed. - periodic-keystone-docs-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-keystone-docs-havana/f8f… : SUCCESS in 2m 17s - periodic-keystone-python26-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-keystone-python26-havana… : FAILURE in 15m 27s - periodic-keystone-python27-havana http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-keystone-python27-havana… : FAILURE in 14m 15s

1 0

Review request for nova backport
by Yaguang Tang 16 Aug '14

16 Aug '14

Hi all, Please help review this nova backport patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100632/ which fixes a bug cause live migration fails. There has been more than two weeks since last core reviewer's review. -- Tang Yaguang Canonical Ltd. | www.ubuntu.com | www.canonical.com Mobile: +86 152 1094 6968 gpg key: 0x187F664F

1 0