| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 00:55 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 02:59 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-release | 03:27 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 03:32 | |
| *** yarkot has joined #openstack-release | 03:45 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-release | 03:49 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 04:03 | |
| *** bdemers has quit IRC | 04:07 | |
| *** bdemers_ has joined #openstack-release | 04:07 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-release | 04:20 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 08:07 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-release | 08:16 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 08:18 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-release | 08:42 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-release | 08:57 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-release | 11:07 | |
| *** doug-fish has joined #openstack-release | 11:49 | |
| *** amotoki_ has joined #openstack-release | 12:41 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 12:43 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 12:47 | |
| *** amotoki_ has quit IRC | 14:16 | |
| *** sigmavirus24_awa is now known as sigmavirus24 | 15:08 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-release | 15:08 | |
| *** rhochmuth has joined #openstack-release | 15:58 | |
| dhellmann | hi, rhochmuth | 16:05 |
|---|---|---|
| rhochmuth | hi | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | so let's talk about monasca's release model, and then you had some build issues you wanted to talk about, too | 16:06 |
| * dhellmann looks for his notes | 16:06 | |
| rhochmuth | sure, although i think we are over our build issues | 16:06 |
| dhellmann | ok, cool | 16:06 |
| rhochmuth | we figured it out | 16:06 |
| rhochmuth | so, probably jsut release model | 16:06 |
| dhellmann | looking at http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/monasca.html | 16:07 |
| rhochmuth | ok | 16:07 |
| dhellmann | ttx had a note that you're listed as "cycle-with-milestones" but you've been doing intermediary (non-beta) releases | 16:07 |
| dhellmann | also that apparently different components of the same "deliverable" are tagged with different versions | 16:08 |
| dhellmann | the latter one just means we need different deliverables defined | 16:08 |
| dhellmann | and the former means we should change your model to cycle-with-intermediary instead | 16:08 |
| rhochmuth | we've been tagging lot's of "releases" | 16:08 |
| dhellmann | but, before we do that, I wanted to make sure you understood the implications | 16:08 |
| dhellmann | and the difference between the two | 16:08 |
| rhochmuth | ok | 16:08 |
| dhellmann | the milestone model implies you'll have one official release per cycle, with betas and release candidates leading up to that | 16:09 |
| dhellmann | the intermediary model sounds more like what you're doing, but also implies that you'll have one *final* release used to create a stable branch for the cycle | 16:09 |
| rhochmuth | the latter sounds like something that we could do | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | there's also an independent model that lets you release at any time, but projects using that tag are not part of the release cycle and can't claim to be part of "mitaka" so I don't think that's what you want | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | we usually reserve that for things outside of the real release, like tools | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | ok, so we can change the release model designation easily enough | 16:10 |
| rhochmuth | i think if we can do intermediary releases, but also have a formal releast that woudl be best | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | great | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | so, deliverables | 16:11 |
| dhellmann | a deliverable may come from multiple repositories, but the expectation is that they are tagged together with the same version number at each release | 16:11 |
| rhochmuth | ok, that sounds reasonable | 16:11 |
| rhochmuth | we did something like that back in may with at 2015.1 tag, or something similar | 16:11 |
| dhellmann | so does the existing "monasca" deliverable need to be split up? | 16:12 |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-release | 16:12 | |
| rhochmuth | there are multiple repos, but we could apply the same tag to all of them | 16:12 |
| rhochmuth | in general, master branch is very high quality, so we can basially tag at anytime | 16:13 |
| dhellmann | here's what I see now: http://paste.openstack.org/show/485288/ | 16:13 |
| dhellmann | so you have things with completely different versions, and at least one that isn't released at all | 16:14 |
| dhellmann | it's fine to split them up into separate deliverables if you want to version them separately -- and at this point that's probably the most sane thing to do otherwise the versions will jump around a lot to get them into sync | 16:15 |
| rhochmuth | so, we've been using a tag that looks like 1.1.16, or something similar, for all of the intermediate releases | 16:15 |
| rhochmuth | and then we had applied a tag of 2015.1 back in May | 16:16 |
| dhellmann | it's not the style of the versions I mean | 16:16 |
| rhochmuth | that was supposed to be more of a "formal" release | 16:16 |
| dhellmann | ok, that's definitely not how we do versioning | 16:16 |
| dhellmann | you should no longer use date-based versions at all | 16:16 |
| dhellmann | we've moved everything to semver: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/pbr/semver.html | 16:17 |
| rhochmuth | so, is there a specific tag that we should be using for releases, like mitaka | 16:18 |
| dhellmann | switching back and forth causes issues for packagers, since the version numbers jump up and down | 16:18 |
| rhochmuth | so, we have several repos. | 16:18 |
| dhellmann | we started the other projects on semver by counting how many releases they had already done, adding 1, and using that as the major version | 16:18 |
| rhochmuth | most of them use a 1.0.X format | 16:18 |
| rhochmuth | but they are our of sync | 16:19 |
| dhellmann | yep, those are good | 16:19 |
| rhochmuth | we tag each independtly | 16:19 |
| dhellmann | ok, they don't need to be in sync | 16:19 |
| dhellmann | but if they are out of sync, they are not part of the same deliverable | 16:19 |
| dhellmann | that's ok -- it's just documentation so people understand what repos are closely tied together | 16:19 |
| dhellmann | since I don't see the same tag on any 2 repos, I think you've got one repo per deliverable | 16:20 |
| dhellmann | each deliverable can have its own version | 16:20 |
| dhellmann | at the end of mitaka, we'll document which final version is the stable version for mitaka | 16:20 |
| rhochmuth | so, if we apply a new tag for each repo at the same time, then that could be a release | 16:20 |
| dhellmann | then in newton you'll raise the minor version number (going from 1.0 to 1.1) at least to leave room for stable releases | 16:20 |
| dhellmann | releases, deliverables, and repos are different but related things | 16:21 |
| dhellmann | you release a deliverable by tagging all of the repos that make up that deliverable | 16:21 |
| dhellmann | the deliverable has a version, and the version is applied to each repo at the same time | 16:21 |
| dhellmann | if you release parts of the system independently, they don't need to be part of the same deliverable | 16:21 |
| dhellmann | here are the deliverable definitions for other projects in mitaka: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/releases/tree/deliverables/mitaka | 16:23 |
| dhellmann | the astara project has several independent components, so those are listed as separate deliverables | 16:23 |
| dhellmann | neutron has several repos in one deliverable, so that's one file | 16:23 |
| dhellmann | by the way, if you want to document which versions of monasca things are part of mitaka, you should do that in the openstack/releases repo | 16:24 |
| rhochmuth | i think we could follow the neutron model | 16:25 |
| dhellmann | ok | 16:25 |
| dhellmann | in that case, you'd need to sync the version numbers of the things that go into the deliverable | 16:25 |
| rhochmuth | argh | 16:25 |
| rhochmuth | i see, they have all the same major version | 16:26 |
| dhellmann | they all have exactly the same version | 16:26 |
| rhochmuth | ok | 16:26 |
| dhellmann | in fact, the way they *get* that version is by me running a script that reads the file in the releases repo | 16:26 |
| rhochmuth | hmmm, i didn't quite understand | 16:26 |
| rhochmuth | so astra | 16:26 |
| dhellmann | astara looks like they're doing similar version numbers right now, even though they treat the parts as separate | 16:27 |
| dhellmann | that implies they expect to possibly do stable releases of the components independently | 16:27 |
| dhellmann | which makes sense for them, because the appliance image may change but the service code doesn't need to | 16:27 |
| rhochmuth | all their versions are like, 8.0.0.0b1 | 16:27 |
| dhellmann | so they are future-proofing their deliverable definitions to allow for separate releases later | 16:28 |
| dhellmann | glance and glance-store may be a better example | 16:28 |
| dhellmann | or the ironic deliverables | 16:28 |
| dhellmann | some of the ironic components don't even have the same major version number | 16:29 |
| dhellmann | some have been released a bunch of times, some only once | 16:29 |
| rhochmuth | so, using ironic as a model, that seems to fit what we've been doing so far | 16:29 |
| dhellmann | right, and that's fine -- we just need to split them up in the governance repo to reflect that | 16:30 |
| dhellmann | and eventually we'll need for you to record the releases in the releases repo using the same structure | 16:30 |
| dhellmann | that is, the same set of deliverables and repos organized in the same way | 16:30 |
| dhellmann | it would be good if you could start doing that soon, so we're up to date by M3 and prepared for the end of cycle releases | 16:31 |
| dhellmann | rhochmuth : make sense? | 16:31 |
| rhochmuth | iyes, absolutely | 16:31 |
| rhochmuth | i think i need to dig in deeper on this | 16:32 |
| dhellmann | rhochmuth : ok, I can work on the patches and let you +1, or you can do them and I can +1. | 16:32 |
| rhochmuth | not sure i've quite conceptualized yet | 16:32 |
| dhellmann | yeah, it's just an organizational layering thing | 16:32 |
| rhochmuth | let me take a look at the project and go thorugh these notes | 16:32 |
| dhellmann | ok | 16:33 |
| dhellmann | we should also talk about the independent projects | 16:33 |
| dhellmann | rhochmuth: monasca-statsd and monasca-ceilometer are release:independent, which means they will not be considered part of mitaka. Is that what you want for this cycle? | 16:34 |
| rhochmuth | i think that is acceptable | 16:34 |
| dhellmann | ok, good, just making sure | 16:35 |
| rhochmuth | although, i woudl like to discuss it with some folks | 16:35 |
| rhochmuth | that are more involved with monasca-ceilometer | 16:35 |
| rhochmuth | it may make sense to sync-up | 16:35 |
| dhellmann | sure. I would like to have this nailed down by the end of next week. The freeze date for changing models was actually *last* week, but we didn't catch up with you in time. | 16:35 |
| rhochmuth | as monasca-ceilometer is dependent on ceilometer and monasca | 16:35 |
| dhellmann | if it lags behind, an independent model may make sense | 16:35 |
| rhochmuth | ok, i'll start digging in | 16:36 |
| dhellmann | they can't really be part of the release if they have to wait for the release... | 16:36 |
| dhellmann | ok, good. please ping me when you're ready, either with links to the reviews in the governance and releases repo, or with notes so I can help you prepare those patches | 16:36 |
| rhochmuth | monasca-statsd could be an independent | 16:36 |
| rhochmuth | ok, thanks | 16:36 |
| dhellmann | and of course, any time in between if you have questions, my bouncer is always subscribed to this room | 16:37 |
| *** sigmavirus24 is now known as sigmavirus24_awa | 17:16 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 17:16 | |
| openstackgerrit | Graham Hayes proposed openstack/releases: Release python-designateclient 1.6.0 https://review.openstack.org/273676 | 17:23 |
| *** bdemers has joined #openstack-release | 18:28 | |
| *** bdemers_ has quit IRC | 18:31 | |
| *** sigmavirus24_awa is now known as sigmavirus24 | 18:42 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jim Rollenhagen proposed openstack/releases: python-ironicclient 1.1.0 https://review.openstack.org/273709 | 18:46 |
| openstackgerrit | Joshua Harlow proposed openstack/releases: Futurist 0.10.0 mitaka release https://review.openstack.org/272227 | 19:38 |
| openstackgerrit | Joshua Harlow proposed openstack/releases: Futurist 0.10.0 mitaka release https://review.openstack.org/272227 | 19:40 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases: Futurist 0.10.0 mitaka release https://review.openstack.org/272227 | 19:54 |
| *** bnemec has quit IRC | 20:18 | |
| *** bnemec has joined #openstack-release | 20:25 | |
| *** Guest94234 is now known as jgriffith | 23:14 | |
| *** gordc has quit IRC | 23:38 | |
| *** sigmavirus24 is now known as sigmavirus24_awa | 23:56 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 23:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!