15:00:39 <amoralej> #startmeeting NFV SIG relaunch 2020-07-22
15:00:39 <centbot> Meeting started Wed Jul 22 15:00:39 2020 UTC.  The chair is amoralej. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:39 <centbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:01:15 <amoralej> please add your topics or thoughts in https://review.rdoproject.org/etherpad/p/NFVSIG-meeting
15:01:22 <amoralej> #topic roll call
15:01:49 <amoralej> let's see if we can finish the meeting today :)
15:01:57 <amoralej> who is around?
15:02:06 <cfontain> hi
15:02:16 <amoralej> #chair cfontain
15:02:16 <centbot> Current chairs: amoralej cfontain
15:02:25 <dholler> hi
15:02:39 <amoralej> #chair dholler
15:02:39 <centbot> Current chairs: amoralej cfontain dholler
15:02:51 <ykarel> o/
15:04:02 <amoralej> #chair ykarel
15:04:02 <centbot> Current chairs: amoralej cfontain dholler ykarel
15:04:12 <amoralej> so i think we all have context about this
15:04:27 <amoralej> #topic current situation of NV SIG
15:04:32 <amoralej> #link https://review.rdoproject.org/etherpad/p/NFVSIG-meeting
15:05:11 <amoralej> nfv sig was pretty active specially about providing vpp for centos7 in the past
15:05:26 <amoralej> but has been inactive in some time, more that one year
15:05:55 <amoralej> so my proposal was to relaunch it to host Red Hat Fast DataPath packages for CentOS and other packages related to NFV
15:06:17 <amoralej> where there are maintainers that want to    take it
15:06:58 <dholler> sounds great
15:07:35 <amoralej> #info my proposal was to relaunch it to host Red Hat Fast DataPath packages for CentOS and other packages related to NFV
15:07:50 <amoralej> let's leave it written :)
15:08:20 <cfontain> As a re-launch, maybe we could focus only on a subset of packages, only OVS for Centos8 as a starter, OVN just after ?
15:08:26 <amoralej> yes
15:08:30 <amoralej> that's also my idea
15:08:40 <dholler> ovs without ovn makes no sense
15:08:41 <amoralej> #topic goals for NFV SIG
15:08:53 <dholler> but centos8 only sounds good
15:09:03 <amoralej> #info the first goal is to rebuild FDP released SRPMs
15:09:07 <amoralej> so yes
15:09:18 <amoralej> i was thinking in start with centos8 only
15:09:24 <amoralej> but both ovn and ovs
15:09:30 <amoralej> which is provided together in fdp
15:09:35 <cfontain> indeed.
15:09:48 <ykarel> so we targetting which versions initally?
15:09:49 <dholler> I already rebuild them both for virt-sig for ovirt
15:09:51 <amoralej> #link http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/8Base/en/Fast-Datapath/SRPMS/
15:09:54 <ykarel> 2.13 or 12
15:10:01 <amoralej> i'd say 2.13 and 2.11
15:10:01 <cfontain> 2.13, latest.
15:10:02 <dholler> but I only build 2.11
15:10:13 <amoralej> dholler, ovirt is using 2.11, right?
15:10:16 <ykarel> ohkk
15:10:17 <dholler> yes
15:10:31 <amoralej> for openstack, we are in 2.12 right now in RDO but willing to move to 2.13
15:10:39 <ykarel> in RDO currently we have 2.12
15:10:42 <amoralej> so i'd say we can go fro 2.11 and 2.13
15:10:43 <ykarel> hmm that's why i asked
15:10:59 <amoralej> and the supported versions of ovn for each ovs
15:11:10 <cfontain> I suggest to skip non LTS versions, so let's avoid 2.12 and (future) 2.14
15:11:25 <amoralej> cfontain, it depends
15:11:39 <amoralej> i mean, we'll rebuild what is released in FDP
15:11:49 <amoralej> not sure if FDP provides LTS only
15:12:02 <amoralej> but for development, upstream projects may need non-LTS
15:12:12 <amoralej> in an interim way
15:12:34 <cfontain> for development, we could always go with upstream, if we need the latest feature in OVN or in OVS.
15:13:14 <cfontain> also, OVN code base is split from OVS (if not already), so OVN release cadence and OVS release cadence will be different
15:13:16 <amoralej> yes
15:13:18 <cfontain> (they are the same today)
15:13:37 <amoralej> in fact, if needed we may provide upstream releases if needed out of fdp
15:13:45 <amoralej> but i'd prefer to skip
15:13:46 <dholler> maybe we can have our own dist-git, which would make es more independent from fdp in a second step?
15:14:02 <amoralej> so
15:14:09 <cfontain> that's why I whished to start first with OVS, and as soon as we have the clear OVS/OVN split, we could have a wider compatibility of multiple versions of OVN to a single version of OVS.
15:14:15 <amoralej> i think we should use distgits from git.centos.org
15:14:49 <amoralej> note that one of the goals is to close the gap between fdp (downstream) and upstream
15:15:05 <amoralej> so if we start diverging we'll end up in a similar situation
15:15:24 <amoralej> so, i'd say we can maintain the spec in our distgit in git.centos.org
15:15:33 <amoralej> but mainly as just an import from fdp srpm
15:15:38 <amoralej> with minimal divergence
15:15:42 <dholler> I would prefer not to diverge, but motive the red hat internal fdp people to contribute
15:15:58 <amoralej> yes, that'd be awesome
15:16:22 <cfontain> what would be the differences between RDO spec and FDP spec files ?
15:16:43 <amoralej> you mean between NFV SIG and FDP?
15:16:46 <cfontain> yes
15:16:47 <amoralej> hopefully none :)
15:17:06 <cfontain> that's what I hope for, so we won't need a dist-git :)
15:17:27 <amoralej> i think it's good to store what was used somewhere for traceability
15:17:33 <amoralej> even if it's exactly the same
15:17:51 <amoralej> but it's just my personal opinion, tbh
15:18:04 <amoralej> the problem is, if we only store when we diverge
15:18:18 <cfontain> I agree, but let's write as a goal *not* to diverge, even for the spec file
15:18:20 <amoralej> at some point is hard to know what is coming from where
15:18:22 <amoralej> yes
15:18:26 <dholler> for oVirt I would just tag the NFV builds
15:18:41 <amoralej> dholler, in fact you many not need even to tag them
15:18:51 <amoralej> you may consume from NFV SIG repos
15:18:53 <amoralej> in mirrors
15:18:59 <dholler> even better
15:19:30 <cfontain> dholler: what is the plan to move to 2.13 for ovirt ?
15:19:50 <amoralej> #info the goal is rebuild FDP srpms with minimal (hopefully none) divergence from FDP
15:20:10 <dholler> not until ovn provides backward compability, because ovirt does
15:20:21 <amoralej> #info if some change is needed in distgits, we'll use NFV SIG branches of openvswitch and ovn in git.centos.org
15:20:30 <amoralej> dholler, cfontain ^ does it sounds good?
15:20:42 <cfontain> amoralej: +1
15:20:48 <dholler> yes, changes will be required
15:21:38 <dholler> in the first step we just have to manage the spec files in NFV dist git
15:21:48 <amoralej> yep
15:22:10 <dholler> but if we want to have more than the published FDP, we require to manage all the patches, too
15:22:16 <amoralej> #info initially OVS 2.11 and 2.13 will be rebuilt for CentOS8
15:22:35 <dholler> so in the first step it would be great if we could have a dist git, and rebuild from the dist git
15:23:21 <amoralej> dholler, CBS always build from srpm so far, but we can force to save every change in the centos distgit by policy
15:23:24 <amoralej> which i'm fine
15:23:53 <dholler> great, if this would be possible
15:24:13 <amoralej> sure
15:24:26 <amoralej> in fact, we have permissions to create our branches
15:24:33 <dholler> does anyone know how to setup the dist git?
15:24:33 <amoralej> with a specific name convention
15:24:38 <amoralej> yes i do
15:24:45 <dholler> very helpful
15:24:55 <amoralej> we can maintain per-release branches
15:25:26 <amoralej> somthing like c8-nfv-sig-ovs211
15:25:28 <amoralej> somthing like c8-nfv-sig-ovs213
15:25:33 <amoralej> and similar for ovn
15:25:51 <amoralej> so we can support different streams in parallel
15:26:11 <dholler> sounds good
15:26:53 <amoralej> #info we'll create per-release branches in openvswitch and ovn repos in git.centos.org to store spec for the different releases
15:27:07 <amoralej> #action amoralej to create branches in openvswitch and ovn repos
15:27:22 <dholler> thanks!
15:27:26 <amoralej> it seems cfontain is having connection issues :)
15:27:36 <cfontain> indeed, but I'm back :)
15:27:54 <amoralej> cfontain, so the plan is to create pre-release branches in centos distgits for 2.11 and 2.13
15:28:08 <amoralej> and build from there
15:28:08 <cfontain> ack, thanks
15:28:40 <amoralej> so once built we'll tag those builds in a -testing tag wich will publish those builds in a testing repo
15:28:49 <amoralej> in buildlogs.centos.org
15:29:02 <amoralej> btw, i think we can have a simple repo for the different releases
15:29:05 <amoralej> as done by fdp
15:29:16 <amoralej> taking advantadge of their per-release package names
15:29:33 <dholler> yes, the more similar, the better for ovirt
15:29:35 <cfontain> it often creates a nightmare when you want to migration from 1 branch to another
15:29:48 <cfontain> s/migration/migrate/
15:29:57 <amoralej> wdym
15:30:24 <amoralej> you mean, having in the same repo?
15:30:41 <cfontain> no, the different package name
15:30:47 <cfontain> ovs-2.11 and ovs-2.13
15:30:47 <amoralej> ah, yes
15:30:51 <amoralej> i don't like it at all
15:30:58 <amoralej> but consistency is one of the goals
15:31:00 <amoralej> so...
15:31:04 <dholler> ack
15:31:15 <amoralej> i think we should keep it as done in fdp
15:31:22 <cfontain> indeed... What we have for openstack is a compat package which 'ease' the upgrade from 1 version to another
15:31:22 <amoralej> we'll need to document that
15:31:32 <amoralej> exactly
15:31:44 <amoralej> in fact we'll need to include that wrapper package in rdo
15:31:50 <amoralej> which isn't currently
15:32:02 <dholler> ovirt has such a wrapper package
15:32:14 <cfontain> dholler: great :)
15:32:17 <amoralej> and version migration is very tricky
15:32:37 <amoralej> what name can we use for this fdp-rebuild repo?
15:32:38 <cfontain> maybe we could have the same wrapper package for ovirt/openstack/openshift ?
15:32:41 <amoralej> nfv-ovs?
15:33:03 <amoralej> cfontain, it may be possible but we'd need to check carefully
15:33:11 <amoralej> specially wrt versions update
15:33:34 <amoralej> there is some magic in the wrapper which i'm not sure it's usable everywhere
15:33:48 <amoralej> but, good to compare
15:33:52 <dholler> the ovirt wrapper package cannot be shared, it is very specific
15:34:14 <dholler> e.g. it has to handle the upgrade from the old naming schema
15:35:21 <dholler> ok, thinking about a fancy name
15:35:34 <amoralej> i'm not good at fancy names :)
15:37:08 <dholler> me neither
15:37:11 <amoralej> :)
15:37:23 <amoralej> ovs seems to be self-explaining
15:37:32 <amoralej> even if it also contains ovn
15:37:37 <dholler> yes, ovs or openvswitch would be good
15:37:39 <amoralej> ovn is specific to ovn
15:37:41 <amoralej> so
15:37:48 <amoralej> yep, i like short names
15:37:53 <amoralej> but right
15:37:58 <amoralej> openvswitch may be better
15:38:13 <amoralej> we are requested to put some kind of release in the repo name
15:38:16 <amoralej> so it will be
15:38:18 <dholler> the wrapper package in ovirt is called ovirt-openvswitch
15:38:21 <cfontain> Should we have 2 repos for  ovs and ovn ?
15:38:25 <amoralej> nvf-openvswitch-2
15:38:36 <amoralej> i think a single repo
15:38:41 <amoralej> for both ovs and ovn
15:38:50 <ykarel> rfor rdo it's rdo-openvswitch
15:39:22 <dholler> whatever is more straight to contain two spec files
15:39:27 <amoralej> cfontain, you see any value in having two repos?
15:39:33 <amoralej> oh
15:39:44 <amoralej> in this case i'm thinking in packages (yum) repos
15:39:44 <cfontain> ovs and ovn will have 2 different release cadence
15:39:45 <amoralej> sorry
15:39:53 <amoralej> it's per-package git repo for spec
15:39:59 <amoralej> separated ovn and ovs
15:40:05 <cfontain> yes
15:40:06 <amoralej> but a single yum repo in the mirror
15:40:21 <cfontain> +1
15:40:44 <cfontain> sorry for the confusion
15:40:47 <amoralej> #info a single tag/repo will be created to contain all rebuilds from fdp
15:40:49 <amoralej> no problem
15:41:01 <amoralej> in fact, repos are associated with cbs tags
15:41:10 <amoralej> i mean yum repos :)
15:41:21 <amoralej> so, i will request a new cbs tag structure
15:42:08 <amoralej> nfv8-openvswitch-2
15:42:59 <amoralej> mm
15:43:09 <amoralej> or could be nfv8-openvswitch-common
15:43:38 <dholler> there might be a package called openvswitch-common , this might be confusing
15:43:51 <amoralej> ok
15:43:58 <dholler> so nfv8-openvswitch-2 is good, only the 2 is ugly
15:44:02 <amoralej> yeah
15:44:18 <dholler> because I think the very new ovn naming schema is more fancy
15:44:20 <amoralej> we need to make nfv8-openvswitch-<something> by naming convention
15:44:41 <dholler> yeh, so let's go with the "2", even it does not fil
15:44:43 <dholler> fit
15:44:45 <amoralej> ok
15:45:18 <amoralej> #agreed tag for ovs/ovn will be nfv8-openvswitch-2
15:45:32 <amoralej> #action amoralej to request new tags
15:46:08 <dholler> how can I become member of nfs-sig? amoralej, do you have already permissions to add me?
15:46:35 <amoralej> dholler, no, i can't but i will push someone with permissions to approve
15:46:46 <dholler> amoralej, thanks
15:46:48 <amoralej> after this meeting we'll clean the current list of maintainers
15:46:54 <amoralej> and will add new ones
15:47:08 <amoralej> just to finish with the release process
15:47:31 <dholler> good next step
15:47:31 <amoralej> once the packages are tagged in -testing, we can send a mail to -testing
15:47:55 <amoralej> to ask users to test it from buildlogs.centos.org repo
15:48:09 <amoralej> dholler, you plan to set ovirt jobs somewhere to test it?
15:48:34 <dholler> ovirt could reference the testing repo in ci
15:48:47 <amoralej> yep, that'd be nice
15:49:13 <amoralej> #info once the packages are tagged in -testing, we can send a mail to centos-devel ML asking users to test it
15:49:32 <amoralej> i'll test openstack from -testing too
15:49:42 <amoralej> we'll see how we can create those jobs
15:49:47 <amoralej> ykarel, ^
15:49:55 <ykarel> amoralej, sure
15:50:06 <amoralej> probably with some  review or something like that
15:50:17 <ykarel> with add_repos trick we can try that
15:50:20 <amoralej> i did it last time for messaging sig
15:50:45 <amoralej> and once tests passed we can tag it into -release and announce in ML
15:50:45 <ykarel> should be similar than what u did for messaging
15:50:57 <ykarel> u tried tripleo tests too with messaging sig?
15:51:09 <amoralej> don't remember, tbh
15:51:21 <ykarel> ok np, we can catch that
15:51:35 <amoralej> so, i think we have next actions wrt to building
15:52:01 <amoralej> btw cfontain is there any interest in building vpp for centos again?
15:52:57 <cfontain> We don't have any project which uses VPP today, so I don't see value in building VPP *today*, maybe it will change in the future
15:53:20 <amoralej> ok
15:53:32 <amoralej> #topic sig members
15:54:32 <amoralej> so, anyone interested in participating in the sig can request access to the sig-nfv group in https://accounts.centos.org/group/view/sig-nfv
15:55:15 <amoralej> #action amoralej to send a mail to current members of nfv sig to ask if they want to stay as maintainers
15:55:40 <amoralej> so, dholler i see you already requested
15:55:43 <amoralej> as said before
15:55:49 <ykarel> yatinkarel has applied to sig-nfv!
15:55:53 <amoralej> it was agreed to clean up current list
15:56:02 <amoralej> and let only those interested
15:56:20 <amoralej> cfontain, also you are invited to join :)
15:56:28 <cfontain> amoralej: I'll apply :)
15:56:53 <amoralej> dholler, would it make sense you to lead the builds for 2.11 which are the ones needed for ovirt?
15:57:04 <dholler> amoralej, sure
15:57:24 <amoralej> #action anyone interested in participating in the sig can request access to the sig-nfv group in https://accounts.centos.org/group/view/sig-nfv
15:57:39 <amoralej> ok, we are almost out of time
15:57:42 <amoralej> let's move to last topic
15:58:02 <amoralej> #topic SIG communication
15:58:30 <amoralej> for ML we can use centos-devel with [nfv] tag
15:58:49 <amoralej> i don't thing we need a specific ML in centos
15:58:54 <amoralej> do you agree?
15:59:22 <ykarel> +1 for me
15:59:35 <dholler> ack
15:59:53 <amoralej> #info for mailing list communication we can use centos-devel with [nfv] tag
16:00:12 <amoralej> #info irc conversations will be in #centos-devel in freenode
16:00:18 <amoralej> and about meetings
16:00:33 <amoralej> i think we may have beweekly cadence?
16:00:39 <amoralej> biweekly
16:01:12 <dholler> yes
16:01:19 <amoralej> once everything is set, we'll need even less, probably
16:01:21 <ykarel> that should be good as a start
16:01:38 <ykarel> and can adjust later as needed
16:01:48 <amoralej> any time/day is preferred?
16:02:07 <dholler> this time slot is good for me
16:02:10 <amoralej> dholler, cfontain what timezone are you in?
16:02:24 <cfontain> UTC+1, so this time slot is good for me
16:02:48 <amoralej> ok
16:02:53 <amoralej> i'll use this slot
16:03:15 <amoralej> #info a bi-weekly meeting will be scheduled on Wednesday at 15:00 UTC starting next week
16:03:23 <amoralej> i'll be on PTO after next week
16:03:50 <amoralej> so we can do first meeting next week and see if there is any progress on the tasks
16:04:04 <amoralej> for group membership
16:04:07 <amoralej> and tags
16:04:23 <amoralej> #action amoralej to update NFV Sig home page in wiki
16:04:34 <dholler> amoralej, thanks for taking care, looks like all tasks are on you
16:04:53 <amoralej> btw, you can also request write access of https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/NFV
16:05:09 <amoralej> dholler, specially until you get your users with required permissions
16:05:23 <amoralej> i'll put requests for resources to get things moving on
16:05:35 <amoralej> but feel free to ask for tasks !
16:05:38 <amoralej> :)
16:06:11 <dholler> how can I requrest write access?
16:06:12 <cfontain> I like how it is right now O:-)
16:06:21 <amoralej> :)
16:06:24 <amoralej> let me look for it
16:06:28 <amoralej> i requested yesterday...
16:07:04 <dholler> centos-docs@centos.org ?
16:07:14 <amoralej> yes
16:07:19 <amoralej> you need to create an account
16:07:25 <amoralej> wiki has separated accounts
16:07:30 <amoralej> from CAS
16:08:05 <amoralej> https://wiki.centos.org/action/newaccount/FrontPage?action=newaccount
16:08:14 <dholler> ok, thanks, will do
16:08:17 <amoralej> then you need to register in centos-docs and ask permissions
16:08:36 <amoralej> once you have it, feel free to start updating the doc
16:08:53 <amoralej> so, i think that's it
16:09:03 <amoralej> thanks for your participation, we are 9 minutes over time
16:09:08 <amoralej> you have any other question?
16:10:06 <dholler> no, thanks
16:10:06 <ykarel> none from me
16:10:27 <cfontain> no, thanks
16:10:49 <amoralej> thanks for joining then
16:10:57 <amoralej> #endmeeting