| *** fanzhang has joined #openstack-tc | 00:54 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 01:16 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 01:36 | |
| *** evrardjp_ has joined #openstack-tc | 02:13 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 02:15 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:43 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:44 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:45 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:25 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:26 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:39 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 04:08 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 04:09 | |
| openstackgerrit | Vieri proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Update min tox version to 2.0 https://review.openstack.org/615068 | 07:19 |
|---|---|---|
| *** saneax has joined #openstack-tc | 07:40 | |
| *** fanzhang has quit IRC | 07:40 | |
| *** fanzhang has joined #openstack-tc | 07:40 | |
| *** bauzas is now known as bauwser | 08:52 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 09:00 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 09:04 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 09:06 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 09:10 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:48 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:51 | |
| *** evrardjp_ has quit IRC | 10:03 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 10:05 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 10:09 | |
| *** EmilienM is now known as EvilienM | 10:25 | |
| * cdent has read the tc-meeting log | 10:49 | |
| * smcginnis is interested in cdent's thoughts on the meeting | 11:53 | |
| cdent | smcginnis: hard to parse | 11:53 |
| cdent | but probably because I don't have my usual attention at the moment (I'm in a customer meeting) | 11:53 |
| cdent | But my general reaction was "did we need a meeting for that?" | 11:54 |
| cdent | But I'm predisposed to feel that way. | 11:54 |
| smcginnis | IRC during a customer meeting... :) | 11:54 |
| cdent | As far as I'm concerned the only reason to have a formal meeting is because there are formal things to have conversations about, and if there are so many things to talk about that you don't get a real converastion going, then why bother? | 11:55 |
| cdent | ikr! | 11:55 |
| cdent | I'm not a part of this part of the meeting | 11:55 |
| smcginnis | I tend to feel the same way about meetings, so I was curious to see if having that log was any better than just scanning channel logs. | 11:55 |
| smcginnis | Other than the formal things for a formal meeting, I guess I can see some value for someone doing a quick summary scan of http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-11-01-14.01.html | 11:57 |
| cdent | did things move forward better than they might have other wise? | 11:57 |
| smcginnis | Assuming we are good about use #link, #action, and such. | 11:57 |
| smcginnis | I have my thoughts on that, but will wait to see how things go. | 11:58 |
| * persia finds formal meetings horrible forums for actual discussion | 12:02 | |
| cdent | persia: "formal" is probably the wrong word. I mean "explicit" gathering at a time to talk. If you're not able to really talk because of constraints may as well do something else... | 12:03 |
| persia | I agree with all of that. | 12:03 |
| persia | In addition, I believe formal meetings (where one doesn't actually talk much) are an excellent way to maintain consistency of agenda within a group, identify groupings who will participate in explicit gatherings to talk, and maintain a rhythm of delivery (folk delegated to have discussions at a meeting are usually expected to be able to report status of those discussions at the next meeting). | 12:05 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 12:06 | |
| persia | That said, I find it a rare case to need formal meetings for most things more often than once every 4-6 weeks. The exceptions are usually cases where 90% of the meetings end in 10 minutes because nobody has anything (and they only exist to reduce the latency of alert in environments where direct escalation is frowned upon). | 12:06 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 12:34 | |
| fungi | aspiers: folks lurking in the tc channel would probably also get a kick out of your code review talk | 12:36 |
| aspiers | good point, although it's not *mine* | 12:36 |
| aspiers | anyone interested in a better understanding of OpenStack's code review culture within Gerrit should check out this awesome talk which is finally online one year later! https://twitter.com/GerritReview/status/1058310312389197824 | 12:36 |
| aspiers | 3:55 is an interesting enough statistic by itself | 12:37 |
| * smcginnis queues it up | 12:37 | |
| * smcginnis also turns to aspiers and mumbles *cough* ha-guide *cough* | 12:38 | |
| fungi | yeah, the multi-reviewer stat gives me warm fuzzies | 12:39 |
| aspiers | <fingers mode="in-ears"> That's odd, did I just hear something? Hmm nope, guess not. Time for lunch </fingers> | 12:39 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 12:39 | |
| aspiers | 26% of reviews are contentious | 12:39 |
| smcginnis | :) | 12:39 |
| fungi | contentious? or can be improved on? | 12:40 |
| aspiers | contentious | 12:41 |
| aspiers | explained around 6:00 | 12:41 |
| aspiers | 13% are +2,-1 | 12:41 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 12:45 | |
| *** jaypipes is now known as leakypipes | 12:56 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 13:04 | |
| fungi | ahh, having been on the -1 side of plenty of those i don't know that i'd use the term "contentious" to describe them | 13:12 |
| fungi | most of the time it's that i spot a bug which another core reviewer missed and which isn't being exercised by tests | 13:13 |
| persia | I'm not sure the researchers have the same semantic mappings for the vote values as we tend to use, but as 88% of +2,-1 patches are merged, I suspect the "contention" isn't actually an impediment to velocity. | 13:14 |
| fungi | but in no way are those an argumentative scenario | 13:14 |
| fungi | yeah, in many of those cases i've witnessed, the -1 is fixed with a followup patch so as not to impede progress | 13:14 |
| fungi | and then there's also the fine folks who pepper random changes with a -1 and no explanation, and we ignore them | 13:15 |
| fungi | but yeah, the fact that we let anyone with an account on the server vote -1/+1 likely contributes to some of that misconception | 13:15 |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 13:28 | |
| dtroyer | the number of +2/-2 reviews seemed lower than I would have expected, even so, do our procedural -2s add up enough to make a dent in that? | 13:32 |
| fungi | if they were counting changes which merged in that state, then presumably no | 13:33 |
| fungi | since code review -2 would block the change from merging | 13:33 |
| dtroyer | they did look at that, but the absolute number of +2/-2 was about 628 IIRC | 13:34 |
| fungi | and honestly, in my experience the majority of actually "contentious" changes end up abandoned or reworked until there's consensus | 13:34 |
| openstackgerrit | Guilherme Steinmuller Pimentel proposed openstack/governance master: Add os_placement role to OpenStack-Ansible https://review.openstack.org/615187 | 13:34 |
| dtroyer | sure, I was just wondering if we did enough of a thing (procedural -2) that they may not be expecting to find to throw that off | 13:35 |
| fungi | oh, entirely possible i suppose | 13:35 |
| fungi | our use of code review votes often comes with a lot of nuanced context which a cold statistical analysis won't capture | 13:36 |
| openstackgerrit | Guilherme Steinmuller Pimentel proposed openstack/governance master: Add os_placement role to OpenStack-Ansible https://review.openstack.org/615187 | 13:38 |
| persia | There was commentary indicating that lots of the -2,+2 patches were resolved by scheduling or release concerns, which make me suspect those were the procedural -2s. | 13:45 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 13:55 | |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 13:58 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: add review guidelines for the openstack freeze https://review.openstack.org/614826 | 14:07 |
| *** dansmith is now known as SteelyDan | 14:13 | |
| *** evrardjp_ has joined #openstack-tc | 14:21 | |
| zaneb | aspiers: is he joking about the Beatles being from London? | 14:37 |
| aspiers | haha I didn't spot that | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | isn't everything in england also in london? | 14:38 |
| * dhellmann may have his venn diagram wrong | 14:38 | |
| smcginnis | Beaten to it by dhellmann again! | 14:38 |
| aspiers | lol | 14:41 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp_ : you're currently signed up as liaison to 11 teams, which is 1 more than strictly needed. Do you want to pick one to drop, or are you ok with keeping 11? | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp_ : let me know; I'm going to hold off assigning the other liaisons until I hear from you | 14:54 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 15:02 | |
| scas | i've communicated where chef is currently. it's still in this somewhat alive state, as reviews trickle in, but upstream changes are starting to become continuity issues in the chef community, which won't be felt until closer to Q2 2019 | 15:13 |
| scas | by 'chef community' i mean chef itself, not just chef openstack | 15:15 |
| clarkb | scas: upstream changes in chef itself then? | 15:33 |
| scas | chef itself, and ancillary dependencies | 15:41 |
| scas | some of the relevant discussion has been taking place on github: https://github.com/poise/poise-python/pull/134 | 15:42 |
| scas | poise-python is 'the' way to get a python on a given node | 15:42 |
| fungi | interesting. i didn't realize that travis ci limits job runtime to 1 hour (and collects money from people who want to run longer jobs) | 15:45 |
| clarkb | I'm assuming this is like a puppet3 - puppet4 transition but for chef? I sympathize | 15:47 |
| scas | similarly, yes | 15:47 |
| scas | every eight months, a new major release emerges | 15:47 |
| scas | the difficulty increases exponentially due to said ancillary dependencies, where i may not have any control over what that maintainer can/will do | 15:49 |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 15:58 | |
| ttx | reviewed the tc chair responsibilities etherpad, looks sane to me | 16:16 |
| *** shrasool has joined #openstack-tc | 16:23 | |
| *** shrasool has quit IRC | 16:33 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:33 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 16:52 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 17:19 | |
| ttx | dhellmann: meeting up at http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Technical_Committee_Meeting | 17:21 |
| ttx | code probably needs an update to be able to say "Monthly on first Thursday" instead of "Monthly on Thursday" but that will do it for now :) | 17:22 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 17:22 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: thanks for the review | 17:23 |
| dhellmann | hmm, I'll look at where that wording is generated | 17:23 |
| ttx | It's that str() I made you change to "Monthly"... unfortunately will need to be updated to support saying more than one word :) | 17:25 |
| ttx | it does "$frequency on $day" currently | 17:25 |
| ttx | iirc | 17:25 |
| dhellmann | ah, ok | 17:26 |
| * ttx calls it a day and a week | 17:26 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: have a good weekend | 17:27 |
| *** shrasool has joined #openstack-tc | 17:28 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 17:29 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 17:30 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 17:35 | |
| *** fanzhang has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: OpenStack infra's mirror nodes stopped accepting connections on ports 8080, 8081, and 8082. We will notify when this is fixed and jobs can be rechecked if they failed to communicate with a mirror on these ports. | 18:10 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 18:23 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 18:24 | |
| *** shrasool has quit IRC | 18:27 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:34 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: update the charter section on meetings https://review.openstack.org/608751 | 18:38 |
| *** shrasool has joined #openstack-tc | 18:42 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: add a link to the meeting schedule https://review.openstack.org/608752 | 18:46 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: remove basepython from default testenv settings https://review.openstack.org/614597 | 18:47 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 18:47 | |
| openstackgerrit | Andreas Jaeger proposed openstack/governance master: Use publish-to-pypi https://review.openstack.org/615294 | 18:49 |
| *** EvilienM is now known as EmilienM | 18:53 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: The firewall situation with ports 8080, 8081, and 8082 on mirror nodes has been resolved. You can recheck jobs that have failed to communicate to the mirrors on those ports now. | 18:55 | |
| lbragstad | dhellmann is your opposition to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/610708/5/goals/stein/python3-first.rst because you think there needs to be a separate effort to document supported python versions for each cycle? | 18:55 |
| dhellmann | lbragstad : partly that, and partly I don't like changing the "definition of done" for a goal after we've started working on it | 18:56 |
| dhellmann | the 3.7 work is unrelated | 18:56 |
| lbragstad | ok - that makes sense... even if it is label as optional additional work? | 18:57 |
| dhellmann | let's call that out, and ensure that it is documented for its own sake | 18:57 |
| dhellmann | yeah, there's a good chance PTLs who have already digested that goal document won't look at it again in a way that makes them notice that change anyway | 18:57 |
| lbragstad | but you think they will if we have goal/stein/supported-runtimes.rst ? | 18:58 |
| lbragstad | s/?/instead?/ | 18:58 |
| lbragstad | or are we just going to consider where ever we put this information as a retroactive exercise for stein? | 18:59 |
| dhellmann | only if the people driving that work put in the effort to publicize it | 18:59 |
| dhellmann | so there's 2 sides of this | 18:59 |
| dhellmann | the proposal to change the goal came with the argument that it's not a big deal because it's optional | 19:00 |
| dhellmann | that says to me that it's not actually part of the goal | 19:00 |
| dhellmann | it's a separate initiative | 19:00 |
| dhellmann | there was also the argument that because it's optional, changing the goal shouldn't trigger the annoyance that a real change did in the past | 19:00 |
| dhellmann | I don't agree with that on its face | 19:01 |
| dhellmann | we shouldn't shoe-horn everything we want to do into a goal | 19:01 |
| dhellmann | this is a separate thing, being driven by 1 vendor (for now) | 19:01 |
| dhellmann | that's fine, we need to do it, and sooner is better | 19:01 |
| dhellmann | but it's a separate initiative, and we should treat it that way | 19:02 |
| lbragstad | yeah... that makes sense | 19:02 |
| dhellmann | I like zaneb's proposal to treat python upgrades as goals in general | 19:02 |
| dhellmann | it's too late to do that for stein, but we could totally do it for t | 19:02 |
| lbragstad | as a side note... finding out which projects opted into completing optional goal work outside of the original proposal might be a total pain.. i'm not sure we have a good way of tracking $OPTIONAL_WORK | 19:03 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I haven't been very strict about ensuring that we've kept the storyboard stories up to date | 19:04 |
| lbragstad | ^ that concern would be specific to amending the stein goal though | 19:04 |
| dhellmann | it was way easier for me to track by querying gerrit | 19:04 |
| lbragstad | yeah - i guess if we amend the goal, i could see where someone might say "oh, i wonder what projects did the extra work to enable 3.7 tests" | 19:04 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:05 | |
| lbragstad | which isn't going to be as easy as seeing if they completed the goal because it's optional completion criteria | 19:05 |
| dhellmann | that's a reasonable point, too | 19:07 |
| dhellmann | I'm much more concerned with maintaining the aspects of the goal process that is about communicating expectations, but communicating results is important too | 19:08 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| smcginnis | I don't think it would hurt to mention the possibility for "extra credit" in the goals. But maybe better places for that. | 19:09 |
| dhellmann | if we had come up with this before the goal was approved, I might have gone along with it. a lot of this has to do with timing. | 19:09 |
| lbragstad | extra might be applicable for some goals, but it would need to have it's own task in storyboard or something so that its easy for people to figure out who did or didn't do the extra work | 19:11 |
| lbragstad | if it ends up just being an amended line in the goal it's going to be hard to track | 19:12 |
| lbragstad | IMO | 19:12 |
| lbragstad | i can see how having option goal criteria goes against the clear lines of goal expectations and the idea that we'd rather have multiple smaller and clearly defined goals | 19:14 |
| dhellmann | we have quasi optional stuff now. "if you have a job doing X, it needs to be updated in Y way" or whatever | 19:19 |
| dhellmann | but that's not the same as "you don't have to do this step if you don't want to" | 19:20 |
| smcginnis | On exception of caveat we should think of, if it ends up that way. We just don't want to come out with something saying move from py35 to py36 in one place, and have a goal explicitly stating that py35 should kept. | 19:25 |
| smcginnis | s/of/or | 19:25 |
| *** shrasool has quit IRC | 19:27 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 19:28 | |
| lbragstad | smcginnis we *don't* want to be explicit about previous versions? | 19:28 |
| dhellmann | sure, clarifying things like that is reasonable | 19:28 |
| lbragstad | oh... nevermind | 19:28 |
| smcginnis | lbragstad: We don't want to end up with two official docs coming from the TC stating conflicting information. | 19:29 |
| lbragstad | got it | 19:29 |
| lbragstad | yeah - i agree | 19:29 |
| dhellmann | right, of course -- the point is to communicate clearly | 19:29 |
| dhellmann | if we keep that focus in mind then the changes that are "allowed" will be clear | 19:29 |
| lbragstad | imo, that feels like support for just doing everything in the supported-runtimes.rst | 19:29 |
| dhellmann | it would be useful to have a list of tasks needed when we have to do an update like that | 19:30 |
| lbragstad | by list of tasks, like a list of things to update? | 19:31 |
| *** shrasool has joined #openstack-tc | 19:32 | |
| *** shrasool has quit IRC | 19:41 | |
| *** saneax has quit IRC | 20:05 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 20:24 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 20:28 | |
| dhellmann | yeah, like we know we need to build new images and create new job definitions and templates and ... | 20:29 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:04 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:05 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:08 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 21:13 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:13 | |
| *** shrasool has joined #openstack-tc | 21:23 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:38 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:42 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:47 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:06 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| *** shrasool has quit IRC | 22:24 | |
| *** shrasool has joined #openstack-tc | 22:27 | |
| *** shrasool has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:47 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** ianychoi has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** shrasool has joined #openstack-tc | 23:19 | |
| *** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc | 23:55 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!