| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/releases master: Puppet OpenStack 2023.1 release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/878731 | 00:19 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/releases master: Puppet OpenStack 2023.1 release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/878731 | 01:54 |
| *** amoralej|off is now known as amoralej | 06:32 | |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: Add workaround for announce mail script https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/879065 | 06:54 |
| opendevreview | Hervé Beraud proposed openstack/releases master: Fix tools/announce by using importlib.metadata instead of setuptools https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/879273 | 08:42 |
| hberaud | elodilles_pto: here is a fixed inspired from the openstack-ansible example given by jrosser | 08:43 |
| hberaud | ^^ | 08:43 |
| hberaud | ttx: FYI ^ | 08:45 |
| opendevreview | Rodolfo Alonso proposed openstack/releases master: [neutron] Transition Train release to EOL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/878202 | 08:47 |
| ttx | fungi: AFAICT https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/879319 should do the trick for PTL-Approved. Please give it a quick glance and tell me if I'm completely off, before I un-WIP it :) | 09:50 |
| *** amoralej is now known as amoralej|lunch | 12:09 | |
| opendevreview | Hervé Beraud proposed openstack/releases master: Fix tools/announce by using importlib.metadata instead of setuptools https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/879273 | 12:35 |
| fungi | ttx: minor suggestion on 879319 but otherwise lgtm | 12:42 |
| ttx | if we decide to move to have Zuul +2ing we'll need to update the CI Tools permissions anyway, so let's keep it the way it is? | 12:49 |
| ttx | oh I see what you mean. Will fix now | 12:52 |
| fungi | yeah, keeping that line the way it was means it also won't need to change if you add the extra vote option later | 12:54 |
| ttx | should be ok now | 12:55 |
| fungi | and requiring the max of two options is currently the same as requiring not the min, i think (maybe clarkb can confirm that non-votes are equivalent to a zero vote) | 12:55 |
| ttx | yeah defaultValue should take care of that | 12:56 |
| *** amoralej|lunch is now known as amoralej | 13:07 | |
| Clark[m] | ttx: fungi: yes 0 is the the same as non voting which is why it was previously satisfied by default. You need to keep function = NoBlock though as the default function is MaxWithBlock | 13:54 |
| ttx | Clark: thought it was deprecated by the submitrequirement thing? | 14:03 |
| fungi | Clark[m]: the idea is to make a vote in that label required, so not having one should block submittal | 14:06 |
| Clark[m] | ttx: it is deprecated and you can't push function MaxWithBlock explicitly in Gerrit 3.7 but you can push without setting the value then you get the default which is equivalent. The whole thing is confusing and we are trying to standardize on always setting NoBlock and using submit requirements to make it less confusing | 14:08 |
| Clark[m] | I thought ianw's updates would require it to be set. We should look into that as it hasn't been required here | 14:09 |
| Clark[m] | fungi: yes 0 would be a minimum vote requiring you to +1 (or +2 etc if those values are added) | 14:09 |
| fungi | got it | 14:09 |
| Clark[m] | That said you can test the query and see if changes with no votes or 0 votes show up in the listing | 14:10 |
| fungi | Clark[m]: so just to confirm, function = NoBlock is vestigial and overridden by the submittableIf anyway? | 14:11 |
| Clark[m] | Sort of. function = MaxWithBlock is what you get if you don't set a value. MaxWithBlock is deprecated and Gerrit 3.7 refuses to accept it if set explicitly. But doesn't care when falling back to defaults. This means you may have to satisfy the function and the submit requirement together which is confusing. To avoid as much confusion as possible we want function to always be NoBlock then only submit requirements matter | 14:13 |
| fungi | okay, so satisfying NoBlock is a no-op essentially, and that means rely exclusively on the defined submittableIf rules | 14:31 |
| fungi | and we'll be able to clean all of that up after 3.7 i guess? | 14:32 |
| Clark[m] | Right NoBlock essentially gets out of the submit requirements way. We can't clean it up in 3.7 because the default value in 3.7 is MaxWithBlock. Maybe in 3.8 or 3.9 they will drop function entirely and we can clean it up | 14:33 |
| clarkb | fwiw this whole thing resulted in a lot of confusion for ianw and I and we ended up testing stuff manually and rtfsing | 15:24 |
| clarkb | Which is why I'm hoping we can have the autmoated tooling push people in the right direction. I'll take a look at that this morning really quickly I guess | 15:25 |
| *** amoralej is now known as amoralej|off | 16:03 | |
| clarkb | fungi: ttx https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/879364 will enforce this I think | 16:26 |
| clarkb | fungi: ttx I'm going to rebase ttx's change on ^ so that we can see it all working | 16:47 |
| ttx | ah | 16:48 |
| ttx | just pushed my NoBlock change | 16:48 |
| ttx | clarkb: too late :) | 16:49 |
| clarkb | ha the timing on that was pretty epi | 16:49 |
| ttx | I think I won | 16:49 |
| ttx | should I revert that? | 16:50 |
| clarkb | no its ok. I'll push up a test change insteasd | 16:53 |
| clarkb | ttx: fungi: I +2'd but didn't approve the change because I wasn't sure if we want elodilles_pto and others to weigh in first | 17:13 |
| ttx | clarkb: I think it's good to go... it's what we discussed implementing during our PTG session Friday so we had alignment on implementation | 17:44 |
| fungi | yeah, there was agreement from those individuals on this plan at the ptg | 18:06 |
| clarkb | ok I've approved it | 18:07 |
| fungi | https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+-is:wip+project:openstack/releases looks like what i think you were hoping for | 18:56 |
| fungi | green checkmark in the pa column for changes with positive ptl/liaison feedback | 18:57 |
| fungi | just remember there is a change in workflow, release managers need to set a vote if they're approving in the absence of one. double-check you have the ability to set that now | 18:57 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!