| *** armax has quit IRC | 00:00 | |
| *** jrist has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** jrist has joined #openstack-release | 00:03 | |
| *** jrist has quit IRC | 00:04 | |
| *** jrist has joined #openstack-release | 00:10 | |
| *** jrist has quit IRC | 00:15 | |
| *** jrist has joined #openstack-release | 00:17 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-release | 00:44 | |
| *** efried has quit IRC | 00:51 | |
| *** efried has joined #openstack-release | 00:59 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-release | 01:04 | |
| *** radeks_ has joined #openstack-release | 01:19 | |
| *** radeks_ has quit IRC | 01:24 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 01:34 | |
| *** armax has quit IRC | 01:39 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 02:19 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 02:26 | |
| *** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release | 02:30 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 02:35 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 02:56 | |
| *** notmyname has quit IRC | 03:20 | |
| *** notmyname has joined #openstack-release | 03:20 | |
| *** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release | 03:26 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 03:27 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 03:33 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 03:38 | |
| *** whoami-rajat has joined #openstack-release | 03:41 | |
| *** ykarel|away is now known as ykarel | 03:43 | |
| *** hongbin has joined #openstack-release | 03:45 | |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 03:46 | |
| *** udesale has joined #openstack-release | 03:46 | |
| *** ykarel is now known as ykarel|afk | 05:00 | |
| *** ykarel|afk has quit IRC | 05:04 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release | 05:21 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 05:25 | |
| *** dansmith has quit IRC | 05:26 | |
| *** dansmith has joined #openstack-release | 05:28 | |
| *** ykarel|afk has joined #openstack-release | 05:51 | |
| *** radeks has joined #openstack-release | 05:52 | |
| *** ykarel|afk is now known as ykarel | 05:58 | |
| *** radeks has quit IRC | 06:08 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 06:19 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 06:22 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 06:23 | |
| *** ricolin_ has joined #openstack-release | 06:26 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 06:29 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 06:57 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 06:59 | |
| *** pcaruana has quit IRC | 07:12 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 07:29 | |
| *** amoralej|off is now known as amoralej | 07:33 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-release | 07:36 | |
| *** ykarel is now known as ykarel|lunch | 07:37 | |
| *** pcaruana has joined #openstack-release | 07:42 | |
| *** hberaud|gone is now known as hberaud | 07:45 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 07:52 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 07:53 | |
| *** electrofelix has joined #openstack-release | 07:58 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 08:09 | |
| *** ykarel|lunch is now known as ykarel|away | 08:21 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 08:27 | |
| *** priteau has joined #openstack-release | 08:54 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 09:07 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 09:12 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Release 0.32.0 of openstacksdk https://review.opendev.org/673581 | 09:29 |
|---|---|---|
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Release ironic-inspector 8.2.3 for Stein https://review.opendev.org/672410 | 09:30 |
| *** e0ne_ has joined #openstack-release | 09:36 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 09:37 | |
| *** priteau has quit IRC | 09:43 | |
| *** priteau has joined #openstack-release | 09:44 | |
| *** priteau has quit IRC | 09:50 | |
| *** priteau has joined #openstack-release | 09:52 | |
| *** prometheanfire has quit IRC | 10:04 | |
| *** hberaud is now known as hberaud|lunch | 10:09 | |
| *** ricolin__ has joined #openstack-release | 10:28 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 10:29 | |
| *** ricolin_ has quit IRC | 10:31 | |
| *** prometheanfire has joined #openstack-release | 10:50 | |
| *** amoralej is now known as amoralej|lunch | 11:01 | |
| *** hberaud|lunch is now known as hberaud | 11:09 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 11:29 | |
| *** e0ne_ has quit IRC | 11:30 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 11:45 | |
| *** priteau has quit IRC | 11:46 | |
| *** udesale has quit IRC | 11:49 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 11:50 | |
| *** udesale has joined #openstack-release | 11:50 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 12:16 | |
| *** amoralej|lunch is now known as amoralej | 12:24 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 13:12 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-release | 13:27 | |
| *** priteau has joined #openstack-release | 13:28 | |
| *** priteau has quit IRC | 13:53 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-release | 13:59 | |
| *** priteau has joined #openstack-release | 14:01 | |
| evrardjp | Did you see dtantsur's mail on the MLs? | 14:22 |
| *** jhesketh has quit IRC | 14:23 | |
| *** mlavalle has joined #openstack-release | 14:43 | |
| *** ykarel has joined #openstack-release | 14:43 | |
| corvus | hi, i need to restart zuul -- is there any release activity going on? | 14:45 |
| corvus | i don't see anything in the pipelines on the status page; so if you could hold off on starting anything for a bit, that would be great | 14:46 |
| ttx | evrardjp: yes | 14:54 |
| ttx | There are two ways to look at the issue | 14:54 |
| ttx | 1/ we propose the model change as a way to open the discussion, to avoid late model changes. Releasing a single intermediary release per cycle is still considered ok | 14:55 |
| ttx | 2/ cycle-with-intermediary requires at least two releases, so we need something up around milestone-2 or we need to switch the model | 14:55 |
| *** priteau has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| evrardjp | I understand why the question arises "I want to deal with my own releases, and we'll do when ready inside this cycle" | 14:56 |
| ttx | I see where dtantsur is coming from... if you want to just release when needed, then a flexible cycle-with-intermediary is better than a binary choice | 14:56 |
| evrardjp | I understand why the question arises "I want to deal with my own full release, and we'll do when ready inside this cycle" | 14:56 |
| dtantsur | ttx: exactly | 14:57 |
| ttx | The issue is that we need SOMETHING to fall back to | 14:57 |
| evrardjp | oh I am too used to other chats now, edition are weird | 14:57 |
| evrardjp | what's happening in my brain! | 14:57 |
| ttx | so that we don;t delay the end release because someone goes in vacation at the wrong time | 14:57 |
| dtantsur | my other problem with rc is that I'll doubt anybody will test our rc's except for people who already consume ~ master | 14:57 |
| dtantsur | ttx: you still can force a release at the end of the cycle if the maintainers are not responsive | 14:57 |
| evrardjp | ttx: agreed | 14:57 |
| evrardjp | I was exactly understanding that point | 14:58 |
| ttx | dtantsur: sure. RCs are not very useful as a testing mechanism. They are a way to have fallback releases ready | 14:58 |
| ttx | without "releasing" | 14:58 |
| evrardjp | dtantsur: so basically you mean free for all, and auto release at the end if something wasn't done | 14:59 |
| ttx | dtantsur: one issue last cycle was that we had a bunch of deliverables realize they wanted to switch to cycle-with-rcs at the very end of the cycle, and we'd like to avoid that too | 14:59 |
| dtantsur | yep | 14:59 |
| ttx | So maybe the middle ground is: | 14:59 |
| ttx | - for things that do not seem to be producing intermediary releases, open a change to suggest moving to cycle-with-rcs, as a way to open the discussion early | 15:00 |
| ttx | - if that change is -1ed by the team (which ants to keep its options open) that is fine | 15:00 |
| ttx | - if the team fails to release in time, we autorelease around RC1 time to have a fallback | 15:00 |
| ttx | - next cycle when there is the same discussion on the opened patch, the release team can say "told you so" | 15:01 |
| evrardjp | the question is... do we really need that middle ground? | 15:01 |
| ttx | evrardjp: late model switches make our work a lot more complicated | 15:01 |
| evrardjp | ironic is following process, and knows, but I have the impression some projects... just let things slip | 15:01 |
| dtantsur | I don't think it's useful to suggest people to switch to cycle-with-rc if we're not sure anybody will test their rc. But I understand where you're coming from, and it seems like a good middle ground indeed. | 15:01 |
| evrardjp | ttx: agreed there | 15:01 |
| ttx | dtantsur: us triggering releases should stay an oddity, not a model | 15:02 |
| ttx | That is my concern with your proposed solution | 15:02 |
| dtantsur | isn't cycle-with-rc such a model? | 15:02 |
| ttx | that basically teams do not "release" anymore | 15:02 |
| ttx | I still think a release engages the team, and I'd rather avoid the release management team forcing releases | 15:03 |
| dtantsur | so, the issue with e.g. networking-generic-switch is its development seems to happen in bursts. Somebody comes and pushes 1-3 features, we release them, then comes silence. | 15:03 |
| dtantsur | I like the ability to release after each such burst, because I assume people will consume such releases. | 15:03 |
| dtantsur | But you're right, there are large periods when we simply don't have anything to release. | 15:03 |
| ttx | RCs are decided by the team. We just require one to be done before a deadline, so that we have a fallback | 15:04 |
| ttx | They are still very much "release candidates" so the team is fine with them being "the release" unless they come up with a bew one | 15:04 |
| ttx | new* | 15:04 |
| dtantsur | doesn't it cause the same problems with inactive teams? | 15:04 |
| dtantsur | e.g. what if they forget to make rc1? | 15:04 |
| ttx | dtantsur: we generally track them down... and sometimes we just ask the tC to vote on their removal | 15:05 |
| dtantsur | cannot the same logic be applied to the final release? | 15:05 |
| ttx | we still have a couple of weeks before release to make things meet | 15:05 |
| dtantsur | fair enough | 15:06 |
| ttx | dtantsur: we want to be in a place where the week before release, we have release candidates for everything. Can be a RC, can be an intermediary release. That is where we'll cut stable branches from if nobody shows up the last week] | 15:06 |
| ttx | actually we want to be in that situation by RC1 | 15:07 |
| evrardjp | yeah | 15:07 |
| ttx | the week before release we want to have enough free time to solve any problem | 15:07 |
| ttx | That is how we always hit release date in the past | 15:07 |
| ttx | despite having hundreds of moving pieces | 15:08 |
| ttx | dtantsur: I'll raise it on the meeting tonight and get some form of consensus from the team | 15:08 |
| dtantsur | thx! | 15:08 |
| *** ykarel is now known as ykarel|away | 15:08 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| *** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release | 15:17 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 15:18 | |
| *** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release | 15:19 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 15:20 | |
| *** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release | 15:20 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 15:36 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:37 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 15:48 | |
| *** priteau has joined #openstack-release | 15:50 | |
| *** whoami-rajat has quit IRC | 15:51 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 15:51 | |
| *** amoralej is now known as amoralej|off | 15:52 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-release | 15:58 | |
| *** hberaud is now known as hberaud|afk | 16:00 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 16:29 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 16:38 | |
| *** priteau has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** electrofelix has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** hberaud|afk is now known as hberaud | 17:08 | |
| *** bobh has joined #openstack-release | 17:11 | |
| *** bobh has quit IRC | 17:11 | |
| *** udesale has quit IRC | 17:14 | |
| *** whoami-rajat has joined #openstack-release | 17:15 | |
| *** ricolin__ is now known as ricolin | 17:30 | |
| *** hberaud is now known as hberaud|afk | 17:39 | |
| *** hberaud|afk is now known as hberaud | 18:10 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release | 18:16 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 18:32 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release | 18:40 | |
| *** armstrong has joined #openstack-release | 18:50 | |
| ttx | ohai all | 18:59 |
| tonyb | #startmeeting releaseteam | 19:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Aug 1 19:00:17 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is tonyb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 19:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 19:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: releaseteam)" | 19:00 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' | 19:00 |
| smcginnis | o/ | 19:00 |
| ttx | i did push a full agenda for today :) | 19:00 |
| tonyb | ttx: Thanks | 19:00 |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 19:01 |
| armstrong | o/ | 19:01 |
| tonyb | diablo_rojo, armstrong: Hello | 19:01 |
| smcginnis | How's we get so far down in that tracking etherpad already? | 19:01 |
| smcginnis | *How'd | 19:01 |
| ttx | R-11 it is | 19:01 |
| fungi | i never can remember the agenda url | 19:02 |
| ttx | https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/train-relmgt-tracking | 19:02 |
| ttx | scroll down to ~277 | 19:02 |
| fungi | thank! would be awesome if it were just mentioned at the start of each meeting | 19:02 |
| tonyb | fungi: I only know it because it's perma-open | 19:02 |
| fungi | heh | 19:02 |
| ttx | I trained my firefox to remember it for me | 19:02 |
| fungi | yeah, i typically find it by starting to type some stuff into the url bar and see what comes up | 19:03 |
| fungi | (i suppose i should really use bookmarks) | 19:03 |
| ttx | shall we start? | 19:03 |
| tonyb | Yup | 19:03 |
| dhellmann | cranky email response sent to the thread about release models | 19:04 |
| dhellmann | oh, hi :-) | 19:04 |
| tonyb | #topic Late train-2 milestone actions | 19:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Late train-2 milestone actions (Meeting topic: releaseteam)" | 19:04 | |
| ttx | So I did recompile the list of libraries that were not refreshed since milestone-1, and looked up the recent changes | 19:04 |
| ttx | Result at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/train-2-library-autoreleases | 19:04 |
| ttx | with the likely candidates in bold | 19:04 |
| ttx | In theory we should propose a release for all of those | 19:05 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 19:05 | |
| ttx | Any objection? Any volunteer to push those? | 19:05 |
| diablo_rojo | dhellmann, several cranky responses, lots of shooting the messenger | 19:06 |
| dhellmann | diablo_rojo : I meant my own cranky response :-) | 19:06 |
| diablo_rojo | dhellmann, ah I have only seen the three previous ones | 19:06 |
| dhellmann | ttx: when you say "all" do you mean the bolded ones, or all of them? | 19:06 |
| tonyb | ttx: Sounds good to me. I was on my todo list for this week but it hasn't happened | 19:06 |
| ttx | bolded | 19:06 |
| dhellmann | ok, no objection | 19:07 |
| ttx | We now just need someone to push those | 19:07 |
| ttx | 18 | 19:07 |
| tonyb | I'll do them (my) tomorrow. | 19:07 |
| ttx | thanks! | 19:07 |
| fungi | a.k.a. "saturday" | 19:07 |
| tonyb | I have arranged to work this weekend to catch up on some of the community work I have dropped | 19:07 |
| ttx | Next we have any leftover from the membershipfreeze list | 19:08 |
| tonyb | 2 days isn't enough but it will help | 19:08 |
| fungi | tonyb: that sucks, you deserve a weekend | 19:08 |
| ttx | it seems we still have a few misses | 19:08 |
| tonyb | fungi: I agree but .... | 19:08 |
| ttx | Like python-adjutantclient | 19:08 |
| diablo_rojo | ttx, yeah I tried to ping them again when they didn't address that one but have had no response | 19:08 |
| diablo_rojo | I can ping again. | 19:09 |
| ttx | It feels like we can propose its addition. Can't have adjutant without python-adjutantclient | 19:09 |
| smcginnis | Seems like we should have a probationary period for newly accepted projects. Adjutant had more activity before it was accepted than after. | 19:09 |
| ttx | cyborg-tempest-plugin | 19:09 |
| ttx | same for ^ | 19:09 |
| ttx | smcginnis: thatis not our call | 19:09 |
| ttx | but we can raise it to the TC yes | 19:09 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, just musing. | 19:09 |
| diablo_rojo | Also no response.. despite email and attempts at direct pings | 19:10 |
| tonyb | Can one of y'all take it to the TC. | 19:10 |
| ttx | sure can do | 19:10 |
| ttx | what about the ironic ones? | 19:10 |
| * ttx checks if they are not done already | 19:11 | |
| ttx | networking-generic-switch-tempest-plugin needs to be made release-management: none | 19:12 |
| diablo_rojo | No that one didn't get proposed yet lastI checked | 19:13 |
| tonyb | I don't know about ironic | 19:13 |
| smcginnis | Shouldn't the tempest plugins just be auto? Or are these ones that declared otherwise? | 19:13 |
| ttx | smcginnis: yeah... | 19:13 |
| tonyb | I think tempest-plugins shoudl just be auto | 19:14 |
| diablo_rojo | TheJulia, agreed the ironic one should be none, there just hasn't been a patch yet. | 19:14 |
| ttx | ok, feels like we need to do a number of follow-ups, but I don't want to spend all the meeting on that | 19:15 |
| tonyb | Well we can make the patch | 19:15 |
| *** hberaud is now known as hberaud|gone | 19:15 | |
| ttx | OSH is a non-issue since they are not train material anyway | 19:15 |
| ttx | puppet-crane was, I think, retied? | 19:15 |
| ttx | retired | 19:15 |
| tonyb | ttx: yup it did | 19:16 |
| ttx | instack-undercloud and tripleo-common-tempest-plugin we'll need to doublecheck and propose in case that was not done already | 19:17 |
| ttx | That leaves compute-hyperv | 19:17 |
| ttx | which I suspect gave no update | 19:17 |
| tonyb | I think instack-undecloud is deprecated if not retired | 19:17 |
| fungi | that grey area where stable branches are still maintained but development on master has ceased | 19:18 |
| tonyb | Ahhh yeah right | 19:18 |
| ttx | we have a "deprecated" mention for that case | 19:18 |
| ttx | release-management:deprecated | 19:18 |
| ttx | in the governance file | 19:18 |
| fungi | yeah, they stopped development before stein released | 19:19 |
| fungi | (or as of rocky at any rate_ | 19:19 |
| ttx | That leaves kolla-cli and compute-hyperv as unknowns | 19:19 |
| ttx | (if we propose all the others) | 19:20 |
| ttx | I'll take the action of proposing all those we have "let's propose it" on | 19:20 |
| tonyb | ttx: Thanks | 19:20 |
| ttx | If someone can take the action of reaching out (again) to kolla and winstackers | 19:20 |
| diablo_rojo | ttx, I can try to poke those two again | 19:20 |
| ttx | I don;t think we should propsoe those | 19:21 |
| ttx | unless they want it | 19:21 |
| ttx | OK, last item on those late things... ACL | 19:21 |
| ttx | I did push https://review.opendev.org/673988 to fix compute-hyperv | 19:21 |
| ttx | Kayobe will also need an update but that is better done after it's been renamed. Scheduled for R-8 week | 19:21 |
| ttx | that was the only two that needed adjustment | 19:22 |
| diablo_rojo | Not so bad | 19:22 |
| ttx | diablo_rojo: basically only affects things that were unofficial and become official | 19:22 |
| ttx | then we have to fix the ACL | 19:22 |
| ttx | OK that was all | 19:23 |
| smcginnis | Out of curiosity, what's the new name for kayobe? | 19:23 |
| ttx | kayobe. | 19:23 |
| ttx | x/kayobe -> openstack/kayobe | 19:24 |
| smcginnis | Ah, gotcha. | 19:24 |
| ttx | tonyb: next topic? | 19:24 |
| tonyb | #topic Should we be OK with cycle-with-intermediary doing only one late release (dtantsur's thread) | 19:24 |
| * ttx catches up on the therad | 19:24 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Should we be OK with cycle-with-intermediary doing only one late release (dtantsur's thread) (Meeting topic: releaseteam)" | 19:24 | |
| smcginnis | The reason we moved away from that was avoiding finding out at the very end that there's been no release and the current state of the repo is broken, if I remember correct. | 19:25 |
| * tonyb will make do with the summary | 19:25 | |
| ttx | yeah, dhellmann can you summarize? | 19:25 |
| dhellmann | I gave the reasoning in http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-August/008177.html | 19:26 |
| dhellmann | basically, we need a good release to use to create their stable branch | 19:26 |
| ttx | 16:54 <ttx> There are two ways to look at the issue | 19:26 |
| ttx | 16:55 <ttx> 1/ we propose the model change as a way to open the discussion, to avoid late model changes. Releasing a single intermediary release per cycle is still considered ok | 19:26 |
| ttx | 16:55 <ttx> 2/ cycle-with-intermediary requires at least two releases, so we need something up around milestone-2 or we need to switch the model | 19:26 |
| dhellmann | and we can get a good release for that by either them letting us release for them (change models) or them releasing now | 19:27 |
| ttx | I guess the key question is... are we ok with cycle-with-intermediary things being released only once | 19:27 |
| dhellmann | I don't think it's safe to do, no | 19:27 |
| diablo_rojo | dhellmann, thank you for your reply to the thread I appreciate you defending the messenger. | 19:27 |
| smcginnis | There's also the question of cycle-automatic releasing more than once. | 19:27 |
| ttx | smcginnis: I would be OK with that, but I fail to understand the use case | 19:28 |
| smcginnis | Yeah... | 19:28 |
| ttx | smcginnis: cycle-automatic is for things that are not relally released, just happen to need one per cycle at the end | 19:28 |
| ttx | so if they do a feature release of their tempest plugin we have a mismatch | 19:29 |
| dhellmann | yeah, the point of describing and naming these models is to clearly differentiate them from each other. If we've missed a case, that's fine. But "I want to be called X but act like Y" isn't a good plan. | 19:29 |
| ttx | basically, he hates cycle-with-rcs and would not like falling into it just because he has nothing to release | 19:30 |
| ttx | which I can understand | 19:31 |
| ttx | cycle-with-rcs is good when you know you only want one | 19:31 |
| ttx | cycle-with-intermeidary is good when you know you have 2+ | 19:31 |
| ttx | but when you have no idea... | 19:31 |
| fungi | would a better approach be to have him describe the release model he wants and then we can explain which parts aren't reasonable/logistical? | 19:32 |
| fungi | at which point it likely reduces to an existing release model already defined | 19:32 |
| ttx | fungi: I think that would be cycle-with-whatever-happens | 19:32 |
| fungi | that sounds like independent to me | 19:32 |
| dhellmann | fungi : not quite, because independent isn't part of the openstack release | 19:33 |
| ttx | no, still want a stable branch at the end tied to the release | 19:33 |
| ttx | To be fair, in the recent past we allowed cycle-with-only-one-intermediary | 19:33 |
| ttx | the reason why we reinforced the "must have at least 2" requirement was to force some freshness and have a better fallback | 19:34 |
| dhellmann | I thought the deliverable where we had that issue with branching incorrectly belonged to the ironic team, but maybe it was tripleo | 19:34 |
| dhellmann | maybe it was both of them | 19:34 |
| fungi | it's happened several times with tripleo deliverables | 19:35 |
| tonyb | yeah | 19:35 |
| ttx | I think it's fair that they would not know in advance how many releases will be needed | 19:35 |
| ttx | what would be the issue with saying intermediary is 1+ | 19:35 |
| fungi | but it's also fine to have some point releases on master at arbitrary points in the cycle that cover whatever commits happen to be new | 19:36 |
| ttx | (we had the case with swift last cycle when they did only one) | 19:36 |
| dhellmann | if they get to the end of the cycle and miss the deadline, would we just not branch them? | 19:36 |
| tonyb | We have explained the reasons and the consequences and IIUC the majority of them will be faced by the ironic team so I'm inclined let them go with one | 19:36 |
| ttx | dhellmann: we do the same for cycle-with-rcs to get a RC1 | 19:37 |
| smcginnis | We used to force a final release if none was done. But it was at the end during the crunch, so that wasn't fun. | 19:37 |
| ttx | We could autorelease when we need a thing. Like I said earlier, my main issue with that is that it would become the convenience, and teams would no longer "own" their releases | 19:38 |
| dhellmann | I want us to avoid getting into a situation where something automated has done the wrong thing. If we can avoid that, then I don't care if projects don't actually do releases until the very end of the cycle. | 19:38 |
| dhellmann | Lots of them already don't pay much attention to that part of the process | 19:38 |
| ttx | the deliverables where you have no idea how many releases you will do are the sames you probably would not mind being autoreleased | 19:39 |
| dhellmann | You'd think. Except the ironic team is the one objecting. | 19:39 |
| dhellmann | anyway, I don't know how much my vote on this should really count, so I'll accept what the group decides | 19:39 |
| ttx | Here would be my proposal | 19:40 |
| fungi | especially problematic if something automatic has done a wrong and undoable thing | 19:40 |
| ttx | between milestone2 and milestone3 we look up intermediary things that have not done a release yet. | 19:40 |
| fungi | er, wrong and not-undoable | 19:40 |
| ttx | We propose a switch to cycle-with-rcs, and use that to start a discussion | 19:40 |
| ttx | at that point three things can happen | 19:40 |
| ttx | (1) you realize you could do a release, and do one now | 19:41 |
| ttx | (2) you realize you only want to do one release this cycle, and +1 the patch | 19:41 |
| ttx | (3) you have no idea where you're going and would like to release as-needed, and -1 the patch | 19:42 |
| ttx | In the case of (3), if by RC1 freeze we still have no release, we'd force one | 19:42 |
| dhellmann | what if we just propose a release, and not a model change? then they only have to choose between (1) and (3) | 19:42 |
| ttx | that would work too. I just wanted to put the cycle model change on the table | 19:43 |
| ttx | because I still think it's the best way to do "one release per cycle" | 19:44 |
| ttx | If the PTL chooses (1) and proposes a release, we abandon our patch | 19:44 |
| dhellmann | ok | 19:44 |
| tonyb | ttx: That works for me. | 19:45 |
| smcginnis | ttx: Would it be a good next step for you to respond on that thread summarizing this and get feedback before we go too much further in making any changes on our own? | 19:45 |
| fungi | i guess the contention is between not knowing that they want more than 1 release for a particular cycle vs not being allowed to have more than 1 release for a given cycle? | 19:45 |
| smcginnis | I just think it would be good for buy-in and spreading awareness. | 19:45 |
| ttx | smcginnis: I could do that tomorrow, but feel free to beat me to it | 19:46 |
| ttx | I fear the thread will explode ebfore I can post | 19:46 |
| ttx | and my head is ready to explode, been a long day, so I;d rather not do anything tonight | 19:46 |
| * dhellmann promises not to post any more inflammatory messages to that thread | 19:47 | |
| tonyb | dhellmann: I didn't think it was inflammatory | 19:47 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I started a post like yours but put it back in the draft box | 19:47 |
| diablo_rojo | dhellmann, I didn't think it was inflammatory either | 19:47 |
| dhellmann | maybe I managed to edit it out, then | 19:48 |
| ttx | tonyb: I think we can move on to next topic | 19:49 |
| tonyb | #topic Stuck reviews | 19:50 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Stuck reviews (Meeting topic: releaseteam)" | 19:50 | |
| ttx | I noticed a few patches that seem to have trouble getting W+1ed | 19:50 |
| ttx | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/670808/ (the stable-branch-mode:none one, maybe it's time to W+1) | 19:51 |
| ttx | feel free to do that now :) | 19:51 |
| ttx | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/670641/ (Update Python testing runtimes - not clear if that is something we want) | 19:51 |
| ttx | I'm a bit unclear on that one | 19:51 |
| ttx | I think we want it | 19:52 |
| smcginnis | I'm for it. | 19:52 |
| ttx | ? | 19:52 |
| ttx | ok | 19:52 |
| dhellmann | which version of python do our jobs use? | 19:52 |
| fungi | looks like 3.6 and 3.7 right now | 19:53 |
| tonyb | those ^^ | 19:53 |
| fungi | so in theory this change is a no-op, i think | 19:53 |
| smcginnis | For our purposes, we could probably also just do py3 and not be as specific. | 19:53 |
| smcginnis | But if all other OpenStack projects are requiring the use of py37, we might as well follow along. | 19:53 |
| tonyb | I'm okay with it. I didn't mean to slow it down that much | 19:53 |
| fungi | yeah, it's not a repository which is released as part of the cycle (there's a bit of irony) so the supported runtimes pti is a bit less applicable | 19:54 |
| ttx | I'll let someone with enough brain juice to understand it push the W+1 button | 19:54 |
| fungi | but fine to follow | 19:54 |
| ttx | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672378/ (new_release reformat blocking Oslo releases) | 19:54 |
| ttx | does anyone know why that happened? | 19:54 |
| smcginnis | evrardjp fixed new-release. | 19:54 |
| fungi | note that the python runtimes change is also self-testing so you can just see what jobs it ran | 19:54 |
| smcginnis | Not sure why bnemec-pto hasn't updated that, but now that I see his nick I guess I know. | 19:54 |
| ttx | so this needs to be reposted ? | 19:54 |
| ttx | maybe the answer is in his current name | 19:55 |
| ttx | ok, can someone leave a comment on that one? | 19:55 |
| ttx | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672307/ (should cycle-automatic allow intermediary releases ?) | 19:55 |
| ttx | So we discussed that earlier | 19:55 |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 19:55 | |
| ttx | I feel like cycle-automatic should not | 19:55 |
| ttx | otherwise we make the autorelease not a exceptional corner case but more of a normal thing | 19:56 |
| ttx | cycle-automatic was designed for things that technically need a release at the end of the cycle but where "the release" does not mean much | 19:57 |
| ttx | and therefore was constantly overlooked | 19:57 |
| fungi | marking time, in essence | 19:57 |
| fungi | "this was the state of the repository at the time openstack released foo" | 19:57 |
| ttx | I'd prefer if it stayed that way | 19:57 |
| smcginnis | I could see teams liking the idea of releasing whenever they found a need, but knowing there will be a final one done for them. But per previous discussion, I'd rather avoid that extra work falling on this team. | 19:57 |
| ttx | my understanding is that tempest does not really use the released version of the plugin ? | 19:58 |
| ttx | but gets it from master? | 19:58 |
| ttx | and since it is the only user of the plugin... | 19:58 |
| tonyb | ttx: vendors package the releases (IIUC) | 19:58 |
| fungi | the primary use case we discussed was refstack users | 19:59 |
| ttx | tonyb: yes but not during the cycle right | 19:59 |
| smcginnis | Apparently some do. | 19:59 |
| tonyb | ttx: RDO does | 19:59 |
| fungi | testing old openstack version $x, i use tempest $y and "corresponding" plugin versions | 19:59 |
| smcginnis | Or at least that has been the response indicated when I've asked others when they've done interim releases of tempest plugins. | 19:59 |
| ttx | ok | 19:59 |
| ttx | so we can be OK with intermediary releases | 19:59 |
| tonyb | ttx: basically if theere is a release of anything in OpenStack RDO will grab it ASAP | 20:00 |
| ttx | as long as cycle-automatic is limited to corner cases | 20:00 |
| ttx | (like tempest plugins) | 20:00 |
| fungi | it's more being able to publish/track which versions of the plugins someone should use when using a particular version of tempest | 20:00 |
| ttx | I don't really care | 20:00 |
| ttx | it's a bit of a slippery slope but meh | 20:00 |
| tonyb | fungi: That's a nice use too | 20:00 |
| ttx | everyone ok with this? | 20:01 |
| tonyb | ttx: Yup | 20:01 |
| ttx | smcginnis: can you comment to that effect on that review? | 20:01 |
| ttx | ISTR you were involved in it | 20:01 |
| smcginnis | Yep, will do. | 20:01 |
| smcginnis | I just posed the question. | 20:01 |
| ttx | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/669746/ (the big YAML update... can we just merge it before it's outdated again) | 20:01 |
| ttx | can we get this one in now? | 20:02 |
| ttx | that was all I had | 20:02 |
| ttx | and we are past time | 20:02 |
| *** ltomasbo has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Add stable-branch-mode:none option https://review.opendev.org/670808 | 20:03 |
| tonyb | Just the PTG thing | 20:03 |
| smcginnis | It's a small change but unfortunately touches a lot of files. | 20:03 |
| ttx | Is PTG/FOrum planning urgent? | 20:03 |
| tonyb | are we going? do we need space? howmuch? | 20:03 |
| ttx | I'm going | 20:03 |
| ttx | we can meet in a corner | 20:03 |
| diablo_rojo | I'll be there. | 20:03 |
| smcginnis | No official confirmation, but I believe I'm going. | 20:03 |
| ttx | Half a day? | 20:03 |
| tonyb | smcginnis: do you have a tool to check for late additions of 'true' ? | 20:03 |
| tonyb | That sounds godo to me | 20:04 |
| tonyb | I shall make it sow | 20:04 |
| fungi | i'll be there and can join in discussions if i'm not too overbooked | 20:04 |
| smcginnis | tonyb: The gate rebase on master should catch any, but I just rebased that this morning so I think we should still be good. | 20:04 |
| tonyb | *so even | 20:04 |
| dhellmann | I won't be there this time | 20:04 |
| *** amoralej|off has quit IRC | 20:04 | |
| tonyb | dhellmann: :( | 20:04 |
| dhellmann | yeah, :-( | 20:04 |
| tonyb | smcginnis: I was thinking of like in a couple of weeks | 20:04 |
| fungi | well, at least i'm as likely to be there as i can be, pending visa approval and hurricane season | 20:04 |
| diablo_rojo | dhellmann, there is always TSP.. | 20:04 |
| ttx | alright then, I need to run | 20:05 |
| tonyb | #endmeeting | 20:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Release Managers office - Come here to discuss how to release OpenStack components - Logged at http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-release/" | 20:05 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Aug 1 20:05:48 2019 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:05 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/releaseteam/2019/releaseteam.2019-08-01-19.00.html | 20:05 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/releaseteam/2019/releaseteam.2019-08-01-19.00.txt | 20:05 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/releaseteam/2019/releaseteam.2019-08-01-19.00.log.html | 20:05 |
| tonyb | Thanks so muych everyone | 20:05 |
| diablo_rojo | Thanks tonyb! | 20:06 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 20:06 | |
| ttx | Thanks tonyb ! | 20:06 |
| tonyb | ttx: thanks again for building that agenda | 20:08 |
| * tonyb needs coffee | 20:08 | |
| tonyb | Because I wasn't doing enough: https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/wrcAO8jg/irccloudcapture5758538197195682014.jpg | 20:09 |
| tonyb | #newpuppy | 20:10 |
| dhellmann | aw! | 20:10 |
| diablo_rojo | THE CUTE | 20:10 |
| dhellmann | those feet look ominous | 20:10 |
| smcginnis | Going to be a big doggo. :) | 20:11 |
| cmurphy | now i'm glad i lurk here | 20:11 |
| smcginnis | hehe | 20:12 |
| diablo_rojo | cmurphy, lol | 20:12 |
| tonyb | :) | 20:12 |
| smcginnis | Come for the software releases, stay for the adorable pets. | 20:12 |
| diablo_rojo | tonyb, I think thats two votes for more puppo pictures | 20:12 |
| tonyb | Yeah he'll be a 'medium' dog | 20:12 |
| tonyb | someone I can take on trail runs | 20:13 |
| tonyb | diablo_rojo: Well maybe from time to time | 20:14 |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-release | 20:17 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 20:35 | |
| openstackgerrit | Michael Johnson proposed openstack/releases master: Release octavia-dashboard 1.0.2 and 2.0.1 https://review.opendev.org/674131 | 20:37 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 20:40 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Raise YAML compliance to 1.2 https://review.opendev.org/669746 | 20:49 |
| openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/releases master: Oslo releases for 2019-7-23 https://review.opendev.org/672378 | 21:11 |
| smcginnis | Tagging job failure appears to just be a timeout from that YAML patch. Nothing to see here, move along. | 21:42 |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 21:53 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 22:07 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release | 22:22 | |
| *** dustinc_ has joined #openstack-release | 22:29 | |
| *** kmalloc_ has joined #openstack-release | 22:30 | |
| *** dtantsur has joined #openstack-release | 22:30 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| *** mordred has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| *** kmalloc has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| *** dustinc has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| *** kmalloc_ is now known as kmalloc | 22:37 | |
| *** dustinc_ is now known as dustinc | 22:37 | |
| *** mordred has joined #openstack-release | 22:44 | |
| *** e0ne_ has joined #openstack-release | 22:45 | |
| *** mlavalle has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 22:47 | |
| *** e0ne_ has quit IRC | 22:50 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** whoami-rajat has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** ianychoi has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** trident has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** diablo_rojo is now known as diablo_rojo_ | 23:56 | |
| *** diablo_rojo_ is now known as diablo__rojo_ | 23:56 | |
| *** diablo__rojo_ is now known as diablo_rojoooooo | 23:57 | |
| *** diablo_rojoooooo is now known as diablo_rojo | 23:57 | |
| *** trident has joined #openstack-release | 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!
