Difference between revisions of "CinderXenaMidCycleSummary"
m (added recording link) |
m (add "General Cinder Project Business") |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
===General Cinder Project Business=== | ===General Cinder Project Business=== | ||
| + | Quick discussion of the following issues: | ||
| + | * Reminder that we are in OFTC now for '''#openstack-cinder''' and '''#openstack-meeting-alt'''. There are 69 people showing in the old Freenode cinder room, but no one has said anything in there, so it looks like people have made the transition. | ||
| + | * The TC has asked teams to consider holding their team meetings in their project channel instead of one of the dedicated '''#openstack-meeting*''' rooms. Sounded like most people are OK with that or have no opinion. Since we already have one change people need to be aware of right now (our next meeting will be the first in OFTC), we'll continue to meet in '''#openstack-meeting-alt''' for now and take a vote about moving in the next meeting or so. | ||
| + | * The release team likes to make sure libraries have a released early in the cycle so that changes that have accumulated in master since the most recent stable branch was cut can get a workout and we can find out if we've broken anyone. We did a quick review of unmerged os-brick patches and picked two that should be included in this early release. Rajat will update the release patch when the changes have been merged. (We will wait to release an early python-cinderclient until after v2 support has been removed; see below.) | ||
| + | ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/792118 | ||
| + | ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/789289 | ||
| + | ** release patch: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/792921 | ||
| + | * A question came up about a backport proposed to stable/queens: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/760362. The issue is that it's a pretty big patch (on the order of 1K lines, though half of that is unit tests) and that it's not a clean backport from rocky (and hence will require more careful reviewing). On the other hand, the change is isolated to a single driver. The general feeling was that since we've already allowed backporting from victoria (where it was introduced) back to rocky, we should be consistent and allow it to be backported to queens. Plus, it's a significant bugfix, and people are still using queens. | ||
| + | * It turns out that os-brick is not tagged [https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/vulnerability_managed.html 'vulnerability:managed'], which was a surprise to me. The question for the team was: did anyone remember this being done intentionally, or was it simply an oversight (and we didn't notice because most people file security bugs directly against cinder)? No one thought this had been done intentionally, and the team agreed that it makes sense for private security bugs for os-brick to be managed by the VMT, as is currently done for cinder and the cinderclient. | ||
| + | ** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/794680 | ||
| + | * A discussion about the default envlist in tox.ini for cinder project repos was prompted by a proposed patch to os-brick: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/793221. We're inconsistent about this across repos, although to a certain extent it doesn't matter because no one present admitted to ever using the default tox environment when running tests locally. The default environment is aimed at new contributors, and the general consensus is that we'd like them to run both (a) the unit tests with the latest python version we support, plus (b) pep8. | ||
| + | ** We should put a statement of this in an appropriate place. | ||
| + | ** We may need to think about this some more. See the discussion on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/794661. | ||
| + | |||
===Block Storage API v2 Removal Update=== | ===Block Storage API v2 Removal Update=== | ||
===cgroupv1 -> cgroupv2 update=== | ===cgroupv1 -> cgroupv2 update=== | ||
===Xena Specs Review=== | ===Xena Specs Review=== | ||
Revision as of 22:07, 3 June 2021
Contents
Introduction
At the Xena Virtual PTG we decided to continue the practice of holding two mid-cycle meetings, each two hours long, during weeks R-18 and R-9.
What follows is a brief summary of what was discussed. Full details are on the etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-xena-mid-cycles
Session One: R-18: 2 June 2021
We met in BlueJeans from 1400 to 1600 UTC.
etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-xena-mid-cycles
recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSs5AHz2Iq8
General Cinder Project Business
Quick discussion of the following issues:
- Reminder that we are in OFTC now for #openstack-cinder and #openstack-meeting-alt. There are 69 people showing in the old Freenode cinder room, but no one has said anything in there, so it looks like people have made the transition.
- The TC has asked teams to consider holding their team meetings in their project channel instead of one of the dedicated #openstack-meeting* rooms. Sounded like most people are OK with that or have no opinion. Since we already have one change people need to be aware of right now (our next meeting will be the first in OFTC), we'll continue to meet in #openstack-meeting-alt for now and take a vote about moving in the next meeting or so.
- The release team likes to make sure libraries have a released early in the cycle so that changes that have accumulated in master since the most recent stable branch was cut can get a workout and we can find out if we've broken anyone. We did a quick review of unmerged os-brick patches and picked two that should be included in this early release. Rajat will update the release patch when the changes have been merged. (We will wait to release an early python-cinderclient until after v2 support has been removed; see below.)
- A question came up about a backport proposed to stable/queens: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/760362. The issue is that it's a pretty big patch (on the order of 1K lines, though half of that is unit tests) and that it's not a clean backport from rocky (and hence will require more careful reviewing). On the other hand, the change is isolated to a single driver. The general feeling was that since we've already allowed backporting from victoria (where it was introduced) back to rocky, we should be consistent and allow it to be backported to queens. Plus, it's a significant bugfix, and people are still using queens.
- It turns out that os-brick is not tagged 'vulnerability:managed', which was a surprise to me. The question for the team was: did anyone remember this being done intentionally, or was it simply an oversight (and we didn't notice because most people file security bugs directly against cinder)? No one thought this had been done intentionally, and the team agreed that it makes sense for private security bugs for os-brick to be managed by the VMT, as is currently done for cinder and the cinderclient.
- A discussion about the default envlist in tox.ini for cinder project repos was prompted by a proposed patch to os-brick: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/793221. We're inconsistent about this across repos, although to a certain extent it doesn't matter because no one present admitted to ever using the default tox environment when running tests locally. The default environment is aimed at new contributors, and the general consensus is that we'd like them to run both (a) the unit tests with the latest python version we support, plus (b) pep8.
- We should put a statement of this in an appropriate place.
- We may need to think about this some more. See the discussion on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/794661.
