Hi Josh - I'm able to view all of them, but I probably have special google powers ;)
Which links are broken for you? thanks, On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com> wrote: > > Can we get some of those doc links opened. > > 'You need permission to access this published document.' I am getting for a > few of them :( > > > Ben Nemec wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here's my summary of the discussions we had in the Oslo room at the PTG. >> Please feel free to reply with any additions if I missed something or >> correct anything I've misrepresented. >> >> oslo.config drivers for secret management >> ----------------------------------------- >> >> The oslo.config implementation is in progress, while the Castellan >> driver still needs to be written. We want to land this early in Rocky as >> it is a significant change in architecture for oslo.config and we want >> it to be well-exercised before release. >> >> There are discussions with the TripleO team around adding support for >> this feature to its deployment tooling and there will be a functional >> test job for the Castellan driver with Custodia. >> >> There is a weekly meeting in #openstack-meeting-3 on Tuesdays at 1600 >> UTC for discussion of this feature. >> >> oslo.config driver implementation: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/513844 >> spec: >> >> https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/queens/oslo-config-drivers.html >> >> Custodia key management support for Castellan: >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/515190/ >> >> "stable" libraries >> ------------------ >> >> Some of the Oslo libraries are in a mature state where there are very >> few, if any, meaningful changes to them. With the removal of the >> requirements sync process in Rocky, we may need to change the release >> process for these libraries. My understanding was that there were no >> immediate action items for this, but it was something we need to be >> aware of. >> >> dropping support for mox3 >> ------------------------- >> >> There was some concern that no one from the Oslo team is actually in a >> position to support mox3 if something were to break (such as happened in >> some libraries with Python 3.6). Since there is a community goal to >> remove mox from all OpenStack projects in Rocky this will hopefully not >> be a long-term problem, but there was some discussion that if projects >> needed to keep mox for some reason that they would be asked to provide a >> maintainer for mox3. This topic is kind of on hold pending the outcome >> of the community goal this cycle. >> >> automatic configuration migration on upgrade >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> There is a desire for oslo.config to provide a mechanism to >> automatically migrate deprecated options to their new location on >> version upgrades. This is a fairly complex topic that I can't cover >> adequately in a summary email, but there is a spec proposed at >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/520043/ and POC changes at >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/526314/ and >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/526261/ >> >> One outcome of the discussion was that in the initial version we would >> not try to handle complex migrations, such as the one that happened when >> we combined all of the separate rabbit connection opts into a single >> connection string. To start with we will just raise a warning to the >> user that they need to handle those manually, but a templated or >> hook-based method of automating those migrations could be added as a >> follow-up if there is sufficient demand. >> >> oslo.messaging plans >> -------------------- >> >> There was quite a bit discussed under this topic. I'm going to break it >> down into sub-topics for clarity. >> >> oslo.messaging heartbeats >> ========================= >> >> Everyone seemed to be in favor of this feature, so we anticipate >> development moving forward in Rocky. There is an initial patch proposed >> at https://review.openstack.org/546763 >> >> We felt that it should be possible to opt in and out of the feature, and >> that the configuration should be done at the application level. This >> should _not_ be an operator decision as they do not have the knowledge >> to make it sanely. >> >> There was also a desire to have a TTL for messages. >> >> bug cleanup >> =========== >> >> There are quite a few launchpad bugs open against oslo.messaging that >> were reported against old, now unsupported versions. Since we have the >> launchpad bug expirer enabled in Oslo the action item proposed for such >> bugs was to mark them incomplete and ask the reporter to confirm that >> they still occur against a supported version. This way bugs that don't >> reproduce or where the reporter has lost interest will eventually be >> closed automatically, but bugs that do still exist can be updated with >> more current information. >> >> deprecations >> ============ >> >> The Pika driver will be deprecated in Rocky. To our knowledge, no one >> has ever used it and there are no known benefits over the existing >> Rabbit driver. >> >> Once again, the ZeroMQ driver was proposed for deprecation as well. The >> CI jobs for ZMQ have been broken for a while, and there doesn't seem to >> be much interest in maintaining them. Furthermore, the breakage seems to >> be a fundamental problem with the driver that would require non-trivial >> work to fix. >> >> Given that ZMQ has been a consistent pain point in oslo.messaging over >> the past few years, it was proposed that if someone does step forward >> and want to maintain it going forward then we should split the driver >> off into its own library which could then have its own core team and >> iterate independently of oslo.messaging. However, at this time the plan >> is to propose the deprecation and start that discussion first. >> >> CI >> == >> >> Need to migrate oslo.messaging to zuulv3 native jobs. The >> openstackclient library was proposed as a good example of how to do so. >> >> We also want to have voting hybrid messaging jobs (where the >> notification and rpc messages are sent via different backends). We will >> define a devstack job variant that other projects can turn on if desired. >> >> We also want to add amqp1 support to pifpaf for functional testing. >> >> Low level messaging API >> ======================= >> >> A proposal for a new oslo.messaging API to expose lower level messaging >> functionality was proposed. There is a presentation at >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mCOGwROmpJvsBgCTFKo4PnK6s8DkDVCp1qnRnoKL_Yo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> This seemed to generally be well-received by the room, and dragonflow >> and neutron reviewers were suggested for the spec. >> >> Kafka >> ===== >> >> Andy Smith gave an update on the status of the Kafka driver. Currently >> it is still experimental, and intended to be used for notifications >> only. There is a presentation with more details in >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vQpaSSm7Amk9q4sBEAUi_IpyJ4l07qd3t5T_BPZkdLWfYbtSpSmF7obSB1qRGA65wjiiq2Sb7H2ylJo/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.p >> >> >> testing for Edge/FEMDC use cases >> ================================ >> >> Matthieu Simonin gave a presentation about the testing he has done >> related to messaging in the Edge/FEMDC scenario where messaging targets >> might be widely distributed. The slides can be found at >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1LcF8WcihRDOGmOPIU1aUlkFd1XkHXEnaxIoLmRN4iXw/edit#slide=id.p3 >> >> >> In short, there is a desire to build clouds that have widely distributed >> nodes such that content can be delivered to users from a location as >> close as possible. This puts a lot of pressure on the messaging layer as >> compute nodes (for example) could be halfway around the world from the >> control nodes, which is problematic for a broker-based system such as >> Rabbit. There is some very interesting data comparing Rabbit with a more >> distributed AMQP1 system based on qpid-dispatch-router. In short, the >> distributed system performed much better for this use case, although >> there was still some concern raised about the memory usage on the client >> side with both drivers. Some followup is needed on the oslo.messaging >> side to make sure we aren't leaking/wasting resources in some messaging >> scenarios. >> >> For further details I suggest taking a look at the presentation. >> >> mutable configuration >> --------------------- >> >> This is also a community goal for Rocky, and Chang Bo is driving its >> adoption. There was some discussion of how to test it, and also that we >> should provide an example of turning on mutability for the debug option >> since that is the target of the community goal. The cinder patch can be >> found here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464028/ Turns out it's >> really simple! >> >> Nova is also using this functionality for more complex options related >> to upgrades, so that would be a good place to look for more advanced use >> cases. >> >> Full documentation for the mutable config options is at >> https://docs.openstack.org/oslo.config/latest/reference/mutable.html >> >> The goal status is being tracked in >> https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2001545 >> >> Chang Bo was also going to talk to Lance about possibly coming up with a >> burndown chart like the one he had for the policy in code work. >> >> oslo healthcheck middleware >> --------------------------- >> >> As this ended up being the only major topic for the afternoon, the >> session was unfortunately lightly attended. However, the self-healing >> SIG was talking about related topics at the same time so we ended up >> moving to that room and had a good discussion. >> >> Overall the feature seemed to be well-received. There is some security >> concern with exposing service information over an un-authenticated >> endpoint, but because there is no authentication supported by the health >> checking functionality in things like Kubernetes or HAProxy this is >> unavoidable. The feature won't be mandatory, so if this exposure is >> unacceptable it can be turned off (with a corresponding loss of >> functionality, of course). >> >> There was also some discussion of dropping the asynchronous nature of >> the checks in the initial version in order to keep the complexity to a >> minimum. Asynchronous testing can always be added later if it proves >> necessary. >> >> The full spec is at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/531456 >> >> oslo.config strict validation >> ----------------------------- >> >> I actually had discussions with multiple people about this during the >> week. In both cases, they were just looking for a minimal amount of >> validation that would catch an error such at "devug=True". Such a >> validation might be fairly simple to write now that we have the >> YAML-based sample config with (ideally) information about all the >> options available to set in a project. It should be possible to compare >> the options set in the config file with the ones listed in the sample >> config and raise warnings for any that don't exist. >> >> There is also a more complete validation spec at >> >> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/ocata/oslo-validator.html >> and a patch proposed at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384559/ >> >> Unfortunately there has been little movement on that as of late, so it >> might be worthwhile to implement something more minimalist initially and >> then build from there. The existing patch is quite significant and >> difficult to review. >> >> Conclusion >> ---------- >> >> I feel like there were a lot of good discussions at the PTG and we have >> plenty of work to keep the small Oslo team busy for the Rocky cycle. :-) >> >> Thanks to everyone who participated and I look forward to seeing how >> much progress we've made at the next Summit and PTG. >> >> -Ben >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Ken Giusti (kgiu...@gmail.com) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev