| *** gyee has quit IRC | 00:27 | |
| *** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 04:05 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 04:14 | |
| *** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 04:14 | |
| *** ykarel|away is now known as ykarel | 04:22 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 04:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 04:33 | |
| *** sboyron has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 05:36 | |
| *** jpena|off is now known as jpena | 06:43 | |
| sboyron | Hi, good morning; dirk SUSE ci seems blocked by python-generic-switch (on several execution) and the error message is still obscur to me ^^ | 06:49 |
|---|---|---|
| sboyron | error: configuration database locked by: | 06:49 |
| sboyron | user terminal p0 (pid 1234) on since 2017-1-1 00:00:00 UTC | 06:49 |
| *** amoralej|off is now known as amoralej | 07:12 | |
| sboyron | There seems to be some issues with RDO CI, I get only some 503 errors whatever the build I am looking for. | 07:32 |
| *** apevec has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 07:37 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 07:58 | |
| *** ykarel has quit IRC | 08:25 | |
| *** ykarel has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 08:26 | |
| *** sum12 has quit IRC | 09:27 | |
| *** jaicaa has quit IRC | 09:27 | |
| *** jaicaa has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 10:02 | |
| *** sum12 has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 10:06 | |
| *** apevec has quit IRC | 10:44 | |
| *** jpena is now known as jpena|lunch | 11:37 | |
| *** amoralej is now known as amoralej|lunch | 12:10 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/rpm-packaging master: Update python-dracclient to 4.0.0 https://review.opendev.org/753539 | 12:35 |
| dirk | sboyron: where do you see this error message? | 12:37 |
| dirk | sboyron: regarding the "setuptools" removal, it would be good to have this discussion in one review first before posting two dozen reviews.. | 12:37 |
| dirk | (or post all ofthe changes in one commit) | 12:38 |
| *** jpena|lunch is now known as jpena | 12:38 | |
| dirk | it is perfectly valid to have a commit touch multiple spec files for example | 12:38 |
| sboyron | hi dirk. Ok, I didn't know it was ok to have only one commit touching several ones. I had a talk with jpena about this subject before. | 12:44 |
| sboyron | having one commit touching several .spec will trigger the rebuild of all theses rpm in RDO CI ? | 12:49 |
| hberaud | sboyron: agreed with dirk the setuptools patches could be a all in one patch to avoid to ran lot of CI and avoid back and forth with patches | 12:49 |
| hberaud | sboyron: but now that they are on the rails I'm not against keep them as they are :) | 12:50 |
| sboyron | do I abandon all of these and perform a single commit ? | 12:50 |
| sboyron | ok | 12:51 |
| hberaud | sboyron: I personally think that we can continue with that for this topic, it could be more boring to close them and revalidate a new big patch than to validate them | 12:52 |
| *** ykarel_ has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 12:56 | |
| *** ykarel has quit IRC | 12:58 | |
| sboyron | dirk: I saw the issue here : https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:suse-cloud-ci:rpm-packaging-sles15-Master-c93451b04763f34c73eded150430adb70529ea14 | 13:08 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 13:11 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 13:11 | |
| *** jpena is now known as jpena|off | 13:15 | |
| *** amoralej|lunch is now known as amoralej | 13:19 | |
| *** ykarel_ has quit IRC | 13:20 | |
| *** ykarel has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 13:21 | |
| *** jpena|off is now known as jpena | 13:21 | |
| jpena | it's meeting time | 13:30 |
| jpena | #startmeeting rpm_packaging | 13:30 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Sep 24 13:30:36 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jpena. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 13:30 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 13:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: rpm_packaging)" | 13:30 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'rpm_packaging' | 13:30 |
| jpena | ping toabctl, dirk, apevec, jpena, number80, kaslcrof, cmurphy, rha, hberaud, sboyron | 13:30 |
| jpena | #topic roll call | 13:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "roll call (Meeting topic: rpm_packaging)" | 13:30 | |
| hberaud | o/ | 13:30 |
| jpena | Remember to add any last-minute topic to the agenda at https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging | 13:30 |
| jpena | #chair hberaud | 13:31 |
| openstack | Current chairs: hberaud jpena | 13:31 |
| jpena | we don't have many people around, but let's go anyway! | 13:38 |
| jpena | #topic | 13:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: rpm_packaging)" | 13:38 | |
| jpena | #undo | 13:38 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: #topic | 13:38 |
| jpena | #topic Welcome hberaud as new core | 13:38 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Welcome hberaud as new core (Meeting topic: rpm_packaging)" | 13:39 | |
| jpena | As expected, we have not received any complaint, so hberaud will be our new core reviewer | 13:39 |
| jpena | congrats! | 13:39 |
| hberaud | thanks! | 13:39 |
| jpena | I'll add you to the gerrit group later today | 13:40 |
| hberaud | thanks :) | 13:40 |
| jpena | #topic stable/victoria branching | 13:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "stable/victoria branching (Meeting topic: rpm_packaging)" | 13:42 | |
| jpena | we should be branching stable/victoria soon. I think we're not ready yet (specially with services) | 13:42 |
| jpena | so we'll probably wait for 1 more week, at least | 13:42 |
| hberaud | ack | 13:42 |
| hberaud | I think we can wait until https://releases.openstack.org/victoria/schedule.html#v-final | 13:43 |
| jpena | yes, probably | 13:44 |
| jpena | we just need to make sure not to merge any change that moves us to wallaby releases before branching | 13:44 |
| hberaud | to grab the final RC | 13:44 |
| hberaud | ack | 13:44 |
| jpena | #topic open floor | 13:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open floor (Meeting topic: rpm_packaging)" | 13:45 | |
| jpena | anything else to discuss? | 13:45 |
| hberaud | yes | 13:45 |
| hberaud | I've not much experience here and I wondering how retired project are managed here and if we have a specific process to follow | 13:46 |
| hberaud | to stay up-to-date with retired things | 13:46 |
| jpena | hberaud: which retired projects? | 13:46 |
| hberaud | sec | 13:47 |
| jpena | in general, when a project is retired, we remove its directory in a review for master (and keep the stable releases around) | 13:47 |
| hberaud | not sure it is a good example but per example this retirement => https://review.opendev.org/#/c/748712/ | 13:48 |
| hberaud | ack | 13:48 |
| jpena | ah, but that's at the openstack level | 13:48 |
| jpena | let me find an example for rpm-packaging | 13:48 |
| hberaud | that is that I was thinking | 13:49 |
| hberaud | (removing the dir) | 13:49 |
| hberaud | yep an example would be welcome | 13:49 |
| jpena | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/738138/ for example | 13:50 |
| hberaud | yes my example is an openstack level but this is a random example | 13:50 |
| hberaud | ack thanks | 13:50 |
| hberaud | that's all for me | 13:51 |
| jpena | good! | 13:51 |
| jpena | if we don't have any other topics, we can close early and get some minutes back | 13:51 |
| hberaud | fire | 13:51 |
| jpena | #endmeeting | 13:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging - Regular IRC Meeting Thursdays 13:30 PM UTC in openstack-rpm-packaging" | 13:52 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Sep 24 13:52:30 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:52 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/rpm_packaging/2020/rpm_packaging.2020-09-24-13.30.html | 13:52 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/rpm_packaging/2020/rpm_packaging.2020-09-24-13.30.txt | 13:52 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/rpm_packaging/2020/rpm_packaging.2020-09-24-13.30.log.html | 13:52 |
| jpena | thanks for coming! | 13:52 |
| hberaud | jpena: thanks :) | 13:52 |
| dirk | o/ | 14:20 |
| dirk | sorry was in other meeting :( | 14:20 |
| dirk | jpena: regarding branching, we need to be careful, with the switch to SIG packaging, we will not get the release team doing the branching anymore | 14:21 |
| dirk | jpena: unless that only is forward looking and we can still get this done for this release | 14:21 |
| dirk | jpena: hberaud: the main topic I wanted to discuss is the pbr/setuptools removal | 14:21 |
| dirk | in general I'm +1 on it | 14:22 |
| dirk | however I'm not sure we want to rely on pbr always requiring setuptools going forward. what if it doesn't anymore for some reason? then we would not have setuptools anymore and I wouldn't want to risk that | 14:23 |
| hberaud | I see | 14:23 |
| dirk | is there a specific need for removing the setuptools? does that fix anything? | 14:23 |
| hberaud | nope | 14:23 |
| hberaud | it's just a clean | 14:23 |
| sboyron | hi sry was on an other meeting too | 14:23 |
| hberaud | it's not a drama to keep setuptools | 14:24 |
| sboyron | yep, I just saw that while comparing requirements from projects and Requirements in spec files to understand better how everything is set up | 14:24 |
| sboyron | I saw different things; almost all patch I'v done are removing setuptools as BuildRequires | 14:25 |
| sboyron | some few like nova is removing a regular Requires, so on client side | 14:26 |
| hberaud | however I don't think pbr will leave setuptools in a near future | 14:26 |
| hberaud | but you are right pbr could move away one day | 14:27 |
| sboyron | and there is some spec (if I remember well) that a requiring pbr and not setuptools. I think you should status as core about keeping it or not, but it should be the same for all spec files I think | 14:27 |
| * hberaud school run | 14:27 | |
| * hberaud back | 14:35 | |
| hberaud | So from a factualfulness point of view I think it could more safer to keep setuptools around, under the hood the majority of the openstack's projects rely on setuptools (example: https://opendev.org/openstack/tooz/src/branch/master/setup.py) currently by installing pbr we will pull setuptools too (if not yet installed), however all projects import setuptools directly at installation and even | 14:51 |
| hberaud | they use it to do lot of things (http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=setuptools&i=nope&files=&repos=) | 14:51 |
| hberaud | maybe a grey area could be to order requires to avoid redundant pulling during rpm building, I mean by placing setuptools in the list before pbr, I suppose that requirements are pulled by in the order that they appear, exact? If yes maybe it could help us to win some cycles during the execution without detach our seat belt (by keeping setuptools) | 14:58 |
| sboyron | My understanding behind this patch series was that the spec file should reflect *requirements.txt on the projects. Almost all projects are requiring pbr but not setuptools. If one day setuptools are removed from pbr, the project will needs to add a new requirement to setuptool, and we will catch it at this moment to add it. | 14:59 |
| sboyron | But I understand that it is a bit "trashy" and it is safer to keep it. | 14:59 |
| hberaud | indeed setuptools is implicit in the majority of projects usages and I think that this a bit an issue, explicit is better than implicit | 15:01 |
| sboyron | yep | 15:01 |
| hberaud | I'll bring this topic on table of the next oslo meeting | 15:01 |
| hberaud | to ask some other feedback about the implicit part of this | 15:02 |
| sboyron | what's the best ? should I abandon all the commits and perform a new one to uniformize the fact that some projects have no spec requirement to it right now while having one to pbr ? | 15:03 |
| *** ykarel is now known as ykarel|away | 15:08 | |
| *** ykarel|away has quit IRC | 15:28 | |
| *** jpena is now known as jpena|off | 15:56 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 15:59 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:12 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-rpm-packaging | 16:12 | |
| *** amoralej is now known as amoralej|off | 16:20 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:38 | |
| dirk | sboyron: I am okay to build on the assumption that pbr will always pull in setuptools. so if pbr is in buildrequires I'm good with removing setuptools. if pbr is not in the buildrequires I want to keep setuptools (because I don't want builds to be done by distribute) | 17:12 |
| dirk | I just wanted to have this discussed beforehand (maybe in one review, maybe including a docs addition somewhere) and then do all of it in one go | 17:13 |
| dirk | I agree that its a good idea to keep the requirements and buildrequirements in sync as much as possible, so thats why I support it in general | 17:13 |
| sboyron | ok, great, on the other way, I think the talked to oslo proposed by hberaud is a good idea too, I am not really fan about projects importing directly setuptools in the code while not having it in requirement. | 18:24 |
| sboyron | As hberaud talked me, this match the pep20 : "Explicit is better than implicit." ;) | 18:25 |
| sboyron | I began a small script on my side to check if spec Requirements are well in the project in the *requirements.txt|*.constraints.txt | 18:26 |
| sboyron | That's how I found that. I was thinking about sharing it; I think rpm-packaging-tools is the best place ? | 18:28 |
| sboyron | For the review, I get the point ;) | 18:29 |
| sboyron | I only removed setuptools from BuilRequires chen pbr was in BuildRequires and I removes setuptools from Requires when pbr was Requires. | 18:31 |
| hberaud | sboyron: I think that yes rpm-packaging-tools is the right place for this kind of tooling, also another approach could be to add a new embed test (tox/zuul) triggered on review | 18:32 |
| sboyron | yep sure | 18:32 |
| hberaud | sboyron: but the embed test could be a v2 | 18:32 |
| sboyron | as you pointed in pep20, Now is better than never. | 18:33 |
| hberaud | ahaha exactly :) | 18:33 |
| sboyron | ;) let's finish this script and test it several times before using it in CI. | 18:33 |
| hberaud | +10^100 | 18:35 |
| hberaud | also on release management we have checks to observe if changes have been introduced on setup.cfg (new entrypoints etc...) and also to check changes on requirements, etc... we could rely on something similar to ensure nothing is missing on our patches | 18:39 |
| hberaud | well TTYT | 18:40 |
| * hberaud eject | 18:40 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 19:14 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!