| *** tosky has quit IRC | 00:22 | |
| *** tbarron has joined #openstack-tc | 00:34 | |
| *** timburke_ has quit IRC | 02:09 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 03:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 03:33 | |
| *** vishalmanchanda has joined #openstack-tc | 04:50 | |
| *** Luzi has joined #openstack-tc | 06:04 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 06:48 | |
| *** ralonsoh has joined #openstack-tc | 07:18 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 07:29 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:30 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:30 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:36 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:36 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:45 | |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 07:51 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 07:53 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 07:57 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 08:37 | |
| *** andrewbonney has joined #openstack-tc | 09:08 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:26 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:28 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:28 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:30 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:30 | |
| lourot | gmann o/ is the TC meeting you mentioned yesterday a weekly meeting as described here? https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20200831-reinstate-weekly-meetings.html | 10:41 |
|---|---|---|
| lourot | is it happening on IRC? | 10:41 |
| yoctozepto | lourot: yes, http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Technical_Committee_Meeting | 10:58 |
| yoctozepto | in 4 hours | 10:59 |
| yoctozepto | right here | 10:59 |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 12:10 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:22 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 12:25 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 12:44 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 13:57 | |
| gmann | lourot: yes, here is agenda and we will discuss your patches in open review topic https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 14:13 |
| lourot | \o/ | 14:16 |
| mnaser | lourot: you should be good to go :) | 14:44 |
| lourot | mnaser, thank you! | 14:45 |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 14:53 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 14:58 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Close Xena Elections https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/779846 | 14:58 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Add Manila-NetApp backend charm to OpenStack charms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780007 | 14:59 |
| mnaser | #startmeeting tc | 15:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Mar 18 15:01:07 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mnaser. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:01 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 15:01 |
| mnaser | #topic roll call | 15:01 |
| mnaser | o/ | 15:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "roll call (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:01 | |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 15:01 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | o/ | 15:01 |
| belmoreira | o/ | 15:01 |
| gmann | o/ | 15:02 |
| yoctozepto | \o\ | 15:02 |
| dansmith | but I'm not reo/ | 15:02 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Lol | 15:02 |
| dansmith | gah.. | 15:02 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:02 |
| yoctozepto | yeah, you're not reo/ | 15:02 |
| jungleboyj | REO Speedwagon? | 15:02 |
| mnaser | lol | 15:02 |
| mnaser | welcome yoctozepto :) | 15:02 |
| yoctozepto | lol | 15:02 |
| dansmith | I'm not so good at remembering my client has one input box for whatever channel is in focus :) | 15:02 |
| yoctozepto | thanks mnaser | 15:03 |
| ricolin | o/ | 15:03 |
| yoctozepto | dansmith: don't worry, I sometimes start programming right in my irc client | 15:03 |
| dansmith | my client used to be my editor, so I know how that goes :) | 15:03 |
| mnaser | lol | 15:04 |
| mnaser | okay so getting started | 15:04 |
| mnaser | #topic Audit SIG list and chairs (diablo_rojo) | 15:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Audit SIG list and chairs (diablo_rojo) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:04 | |
| diablo_rojo_phon | I think this is largely done for now? | 15:04 |
| mnaser | #link https://governance.openstack.org/sigs/ | 15:05 |
| gmann | there are few things to do as discussed in last meeting. on adding retirement doc/file for "forming to retire" SIG | 15:05 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Add Manila dashboard charm to OpenStack charms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780813 | 15:05 |
| mnaser | right, which coverst the contaienrs/k8s one | 15:06 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Oh. My bad. | 15:06 |
| gmann | this one #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance-sigs/+/778304 | 15:06 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Got it. | 15:06 |
| gmann | and adding 'reason' in retirement doc. | 15:06 |
| ricolin | mnaser, I think I'm the one who should write that retire doc | 15:06 |
| ricolin | I will do it before this weekend | 15:07 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:07 |
| gmann | thanks | 15:07 |
| mnaser | awesome | 15:07 |
| *** timburke has joined #openstack-tc | 15:07 | |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Thanks ricolin ! | 15:07 |
| mnaser | #action ricolin Add retired SIGs section for governance-sigs repo | 15:07 |
| mnaser | i guess we can drop this topic and just keep following up on the action item above? | 15:08 |
| gmann | section is there, may be to update retirement SIG section | 15:08 |
| gmann | #link https://governance.openstack.org/sigs/reference/sig-guideline.html#retiring-a-sig | 15:09 |
| ricolin | mnaser, +1 | 15:09 |
| gmann | we can add two things there 1. how to retire Forming SIG 2. add reason in retired SIG doc | 15:09 |
| mnaser | yeah, that makes sense | 15:10 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Add Magnum charms to OpenStack charms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780212 | 15:10 |
| ricolin | gmann, make sense:) | 15:10 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Sounds good to me. | 15:10 |
| mnaser | #action mnaser drop "Audit SIG list and chairs" from agenda | 15:11 |
| mnaser | any other comments on this topic? | 15:11 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | None from me. | 15:12 |
| ricolin | None from me either | 15:12 |
| yoctozepto | from me neither | 15:12 |
| mnaser | cool! | 15:12 |
| mnaser | next up | 15:12 |
| mnaser | #topic Gate performance and heavy job configs (dansmith) | 15:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Gate performance and heavy job configs (dansmith) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:12 | |
| dansmith | still suffering mostly from cinder fails I think.. I haven't seen a lot of other patterns | 15:13 |
| dansmith | we're definitely chewing a ton of stuff these days, meaning we're doing lots of tests | 15:13 |
| * jungleboyj face palms | 15:13 | |
| jungleboyj | One of the failures this week has been fixed. | 15:13 |
| jungleboyj | A dependency issue causing problems with the doc build. | 15:14 |
| jungleboyj | That was fixed yesterday. | 15:14 |
| dansmith | I think things are starting to head back to a more normal kind of load level, which means maybe next week or later we can start to look at whether things are really good or not | 15:14 |
| dansmith | jungleboyj: that was a hard fail, right? | 15:14 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: Yes | 15:14 |
| dansmith | I'm talking about spurious fails that affect some percentage of runs randomly | 15:14 |
| mnaser | i see, so things are a little harder to tell between 'busy time' vs 'unreliable jobs' | 15:14 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: Ok, and still seeing those from Cinder? | 15:14 |
| dansmith | mnaser: right | 15:14 |
| dansmith | jungleboyj: yes | 15:15 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. Will keep on the team about that then. | 15:15 |
| fungi | well, having a lot more spurious build failures can lead to long gate queues and wait times similarly to having a higher change volume | 15:15 |
| dansmith | jungleboyj: meaning no change in my general gut feeling of "when I have to recheck, it's a volume test that failed to delete a volume or something similar" | 15:15 |
| fungi | that's why it's hard to tell which is which | 15:15 |
| mnaser | fungi: right | 15:15 |
| jungleboyj | Gotcha. | 15:15 |
| mnaser | dansmith: i assume there is a lp for this often-rechecked thing | 15:16 |
| dansmith | fungi: that's why I'm saying I've not been trying to draw too many conclusions during this time | 15:16 |
| dansmith | fungi: except for the obvious cinder stuff | 15:16 |
| mnaser | do you have it handy by any chance to add it to our meeting notes? | 15:16 |
| dansmith | mnaser: I have been rechecking with "cinder dance" because it seems to be all over the place in terms of which tests fail | 15:16 |
| mnaser | question: is this a good thing to keep an eye on? https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?pipeline=gate&result=FAILURE | 15:17 |
| dansmith | if I dig in deep I usually see a small number of recognizable errors in the cinder logs, but I haven't done the work to try to distill that into a reliable e-r query if that's what you mean | 15:17 |
| mnaser | first thing i notice is a bunch of OSA non-voting jobs :x | 15:17 |
| dansmith | mnaser: non-voting in gate... yeah, that's not cool | 15:18 |
| gmann | more than that check pipeline cause the load due to failures | 15:18 |
| mnaser | right, but technically speaking, gate should always be passing | 15:18 |
| mnaser | in an ideal world | 15:18 |
| dansmith | gmann: yeah for sure | 15:18 |
| fungi | mostly non-voting jobs in gate queues add noise when you're trying to find build failures which actually would have rejected the change | 15:18 |
| dansmith | mnaser: well, and n-v jobs in gate just waste resources because they won't prevent a thing from landing | 15:19 |
| fungi | though yes it's also a waste of (some) resources | 15:19 |
| gmann | yeah, n-c should be removed from gate pipeline | 15:19 |
| gmann | n-v | 15:19 |
| mnaser | #action mnaser reach out to OSA team about dropping nv jobs from gate | 15:19 |
| dansmith | jungleboyj: I think the cinder team is really busy right now with release stuff, | 15:19 |
| mnaser | dansmith: if you wouldn't mind, could you maybe maintain an etherpad of the logs for the cinder failures ? | 15:19 |
| fungi | i once imagined a zuul pipeline option where you could tell it to filter out non-voting jobs for anything enqueued, but i really don't have time to write that | 15:19 |
| dansmith | so I've been trying not to jump in and try to get them to work on these fails, but maybe in a week or so when things cool off we can try to help them at least get them identified | 15:20 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:20 |
| yoctozepto | +1 | 15:20 |
| dansmith | mnaser: the log links expire so I haven't been trying to do that, but I do have local notes on some common types of failures, which I pastebin'd for them last week | 15:20 |
| jungleboyj | +1 | 15:21 |
| yoctozepto | yes, remember to pastebin or you have a nice list of useless links | 15:21 |
| yoctozepto | (happened to me) | 15:21 |
| dansmith | https://termbin.com/oiml1 | 15:21 |
| mnaser | lol | 15:21 |
| fungi | right, we upload logs and set a 30-day expiration for them in swift | 15:21 |
| dansmith | these are what most of the fails I see look like ^ | 15:21 |
| dansmith | and two probably expired links to examples | 15:22 |
| mnaser | ok got it, looks like a volume which failed to create and failed on the cleanup | 15:22 |
| yoctozepto | yeah, I try to pastebin some general logs and related service logs for later enquiries | 15:22 |
| dansmith | but of course, there are multiple variations in the symptoms, depending on whether a test or nova or something else actually is trying to do a thing | 15:22 |
| dansmith | mnaser: it depends | 15:22 |
| dansmith | mnaser: sometimes it's a volume snapshot with an instance on top, etc | 15:23 |
| mnaser | https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/9b5d4b9d44db403a94f5edb02b42f3a8 | 15:23 |
| mnaser | caught one here simply by looking at the same job name | 15:23 |
| mnaser | anyways, so let's keep this open, ill try to follow up with osa team on dropping nv jobs | 15:23 |
| yoctozepto | just nice races in there ;-) | 15:23 |
| dansmith | yeah, but everyone runs those jobs :/ | 15:23 |
| dansmith | so it's not just cinder patches of course | 15:23 |
| gmann | delete one happening ~40 times in last 7 days | 15:23 |
| mnaser | and we can bring this up with cinder team and see if we can maybe get a few minds on this in a call or something | 15:23 |
| gmann | oh even more | 15:24 |
| mnaser | and iron it out | 15:24 |
| dansmith | mnaser: that one you linked is actually different than the other two I have I think | 15:24 |
| dansmith | so yeah... | 15:24 |
| gmann | #link http://logstash.openstack.org/#dashboard/file/logstash.json?query=message%3A%20%5C%22failed%20to%20delete%20and%20is%20in%20error_deleting%20status%5C%22 | 15:24 |
| dansmith | a different stuck state I mean | 15:24 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: you mean... to cinder the bugs! | 15:25 |
| dansmith | gmann: that state check will not catch them all.. there are several states I've seen besides error_deleting | 15:25 |
| gmann | dansmith: yeah, | 15:25 |
| dansmith | this is why I haven't really tried an e-r query because it varies a lot | 15:25 |
| dansmith | anyway, mnaser we can move on, but +1 for continuing to check in on this | 15:26 |
| mnaser | ok cool, maybe we can pick up a crew of folks to try and iron those out and help out the cinder team | 15:26 |
| mnaser | im happy to particpate in that | 15:26 |
| mnaser | but yes, we can move on and keep this idea for next weeks when release stuff settle dowjn | 15:27 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:27 |
| yoctozepto | (uh-oh, nobody picked up the pun) | 15:27 |
| mnaser | :P | 15:27 |
| mnaser | #topic Consensus on lower constraints testing (gmann) | 15:27 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Consensus on lower constraints testing (gmann) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:27 | |
| diablo_rojo_phon | I did yoctozepto :) | 15:27 |
| yoctozepto | diablo_rojo_phon: :-) | 15:28 |
| gmann | we discussed the current proposal sent on ML thread last week which seems no objection until now | 15:28 |
| jungleboyj | yoctozepto: :-) | 15:28 |
| yoctozepto | jungleboyj: :-) | 15:28 |
| mnaser | i think last time it was about the discussion of 'make it policy' or 'make it advisory' | 15:28 |
| gmann | but how to document those or add in PTI is something we can continue discussing | 15:28 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: yes, I remember it like this as well | 15:28 |
| gmann | so that we can decide how we can test or drop the lower bound consistently across all projects | 15:29 |
| mnaser | if i remember, lower constraints purely was for the benefit of distro packagers | 15:29 |
| yoctozepto | yup | 15:29 |
| mnaser | but it seemed like... no distro packagers were actaully relying on it | 15:29 |
| gmann | yes, and only Debian use those | 15:30 |
| mnaser | rdo didnt, canocnical didnt | 15:30 |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 15:30 | |
| yoctozepto | gmann: to some extent | 15:30 |
| gmann | rest all mentioned they use upper constraints | 15:30 |
| yoctozepto | well, l-c never tested any functional aspects | 15:30 |
| yoctozepto | only units | 15:30 |
| mnaser | but i dont think debian uses them as an actual part of a ci pipeline or something, more of like a 'reference' | 15:30 |
| gmann | yes, only unit | 15:30 |
| yoctozepto | and in many units projects just mock the real functionalities of libs | 15:30 |
| yoctozepto | as they don't call out to services | 15:30 |
| yoctozepto | so it's very low in usefulness | 15:31 |
| mnaser | so honestly this fels like there isn't much consumers of those jobs, neither are they really a clear signal that things work | 15:31 |
| mnaser | which personally makes me lean on the 'optional' in the project guide | 15:31 |
| yoctozepto | +1 | 15:31 |
| gmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-January/019918.html | 15:32 |
| gmann | this describe the usage in Debian | 15:32 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 15:32 | |
| yoctozepto | yes, but I guess zigo assumes the tests are really worth it, i.e., lower-constraints actually test the service is usable | 15:33 |
| yoctozepto | they are quite far from that | 15:33 |
| yoctozepto | if we want to make l-c recommended/obligatory, we should enforce functional testing to give them meaning | 15:34 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: zigo impression is if we ship those we keep them up to date. how we keep them up to date is testing part | 15:34 |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 15:34 | |
| mnaser | personally im inclined to ship requirements.txt + upper-constraints.txt only and forget about lower | 15:35 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: do you mean integration testing too tempest jobs? | 15:35 |
| yoctozepto | I would love to ship l-c as well but in their current shape I don't think they produce enough value | 15:35 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: yes | 15:35 |
| yoctozepto | but that's going to consume many more resources for sure | 15:36 |
| gmann | mnaser: that was the proposal in ML thread but we had more response on not to do that and try with "direct deps" only | 15:36 |
| yoctozepto | yes, there is the issue of indirect deps as well | 15:36 |
| gmann | this is start of this ML thread after oslo started it for oslo projects dropping l-c tetsing #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-January/019672.html | 15:36 |
| yoctozepto | they are entirely up to distro packagers | 15:36 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: indirect deps we can surly dropped, no meaning of maintaining those | 15:37 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: yes, but then distro packagers still have no idea what version really works | 15:37 |
| yoctozepto | it is completely possible not to update some indirect dep and have a considerable vulnerability or crashing services | 15:38 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: yeah but they know at least direct deps of what openstack deliverables they install and figure out the others form their maintainer | 15:38 |
| fungi | i also realized that we stopped shipping a global set of lower bounds in openstack requirements several years ago, so now it's just exclusions | 15:38 |
| gmann | yes, that time lower bounds maintenance were moved to project side | 15:39 |
| fungi | so even if all projects shipped a tested lower-constraints.txt, deriving the lowest version of a package which would work for all of openstack would be nontrivial | 15:39 |
| yoctozepto | ++ | 15:39 |
| fungi | also this makes integration testing of lower bounds basically intractable | 15:40 |
| yoctozepto | ++++ | 15:40 |
| mnaser | this seems like a lot of work for something that is not being consumed by users | 15:40 |
| gmann | fungi: yeah that is good point. | 15:40 |
| mnaser | we're already low on resources if it's human or compute time | 15:40 |
| fungi | we have a global upper-constraints.txt specifically because we do integration testing and need to agree on common versions to test | 15:40 |
| mnaser | most distros and source builds rely on upper constraints too | 15:40 |
| fungi | with no global lower bounds tracked which we know work for all projects, we can't really integration-test lower bounds | 15:41 |
| gmann | mnaser: yup, lot of work :) most of my time in community wide goal goes for those | 15:41 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: and debian can just run tempest after they package and I know zigo does run various tests anyway | 15:41 |
| mnaser | right -- so i think maybe we should stop worrying too much about it, unless the people who _want_ lower constraints want to show up and do the work | 15:41 |
| yoctozepto | fungi: well, we can always CoNtAiNeRiSe | 15:41 |
| yoctozepto | but I don't want to start this discussion now at all | 15:42 |
| jungleboyj | mnaser: ++ | 15:42 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: +1 | 15:42 |
| fungi | yoctozepto: i really don't see how container fairy dust solves this for libraries | 15:42 |
| gmann | I am fine with that. | 15:42 |
| yoctozepto | fungi: container per projects - no conflicts to resolve for these lower constraints | 15:43 |
| mnaser | so question, is lower-constraints texting parpt of our pti right now? | 15:43 |
| yoctozepto | per project* | 15:43 |
| fungi | yoctozepto: so an oslo.config container? | 15:43 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 15:43 | |
| fungi | or just allow nova and cinder to use different versions of oslo.config and expect the oslo team to support that | 15:43 |
| yoctozepto | fungi: right, I considered only top-level projects | 15:43 |
| fungi | see, and THAT's the problem | 15:43 |
| yoctozepto | fungi: yes, the second one! :D | 15:43 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: I think not? | 15:44 |
| yoctozepto | guess I checked this the last meeting | 15:44 |
| fungi | mnaser: lower bounds testing is not mentioned in the pti at all, no, it's completely optional | 15:44 |
| gmann | so how we should proceed next, 1. TC resolution first or PTI mentioning explicitly "we do not need lower bound testing a mandatory things " 2. update it in ML and project start dropping if they want. | 15:44 |
| fungi | i don't understand why the pti should become a list of what things we don't have to test | 15:44 |
| yoctozepto | fungi ++ | 15:44 |
| fungi | seems like that would be a never-ending list | 15:45 |
| yoctozepto | well, it's basically a complement of what we expect to test | 15:45 |
| mnaser | fungi: well, we need to write the answer _somewhere_ for "do i do lower boundtesting?" | 15:45 |
| yoctozepto | so it's practically infinite | 15:45 |
| gmann | well, because it is all confusion in most of the projects on we are doing this and we do not know whether to do or not | 15:45 |
| yoctozepto | TC resolution and ML? | 15:45 |
| yoctozepto | write a clear message | 15:45 |
| gmann | if we were not doing this then it could be ok not to mention | 15:45 |
| mnaser | so putting it into governance seems a bit overkill, PTI seems like it would be slightly less overkill | 15:46 |
| gmann | TC resolution + ML is better at least | 15:46 |
| fungi | the pti is part of our governance | 15:46 |
| *** Luzi has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| gmann | yes, pti is in governance | 15:46 |
| yoctozepto | yes | 15:46 |
| fungi | pti is our testing policy all projects are expected to follow | 15:46 |
| mnaser | so rather than a resolution, if its going to be governance, then we put it in the PTI so it can be around the same information | 15:46 |
| fungi | giodance for projects is mostly in the project teams guide, fwiw | 15:46 |
| fungi | er, guidance | 15:46 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:47 |
| mnaser | if we end up with a gigantic list of things to test or not to test, we can maybe look at reorganizing things | 15:47 |
| fungi | there is a section in the project teams guide on lower bounds tests | 15:47 |
| * yoctozepto did a giodance | 15:47 | |
| gmann | we can document like "this is things we used to test but not clear policy, this is consensus now" | 15:47 |
| mnaser | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/python.html#constraints -- could we not just add a sentence in there and update ML? | 15:48 |
| yoctozepto | based on how PTI looks now, I don't think it's worth adding l-c testing there | 15:48 |
| mnaser | because our project team guide says | 15:48 |
| yoctozepto | we can reword the PTI to mention upper-constraints | 15:48 |
| mnaser | "Each project team may also optionally maintain a list of “lower bounds” constraints for the dependencies used to test the project in a lower-constraints.txt file. If the file exists, the requirements check job will ensure that the values it contains match the minimum values specified in the local requirements files, so when the minimums are changed lower-constraints.txt will need to be updated at the same time. | 15:48 |
| mnaser | Per-project test jobs can be configured to use the file for unit or functional tests." | 15:48 |
| yoctozepto | instead of just "constraints" | 15:48 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: we can add u-c and tell about we do not do l-c testing | 15:49 |
| gmann | and remove/update the existing statements from project-guide | 15:49 |
| jungleboyj | Would seem that updating that would be sufficient. | 15:49 |
| yoctozepto | but you realise it's a bit silly to add information about what is not being done in a place where people look for information on what should be done? | 15:50 |
| fungi | #link https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/dependency-management.html | 15:50 |
| fungi | that seems like a reasonable place | 15:50 |
| yoctozepto | PTI needs update to mention u-c only - that for sure | 15:50 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: i think it is "we were doing soemthing and we do not it any more becasue of xyz reason' | 15:50 |
| mnaser | ok, how about a simpler approach | 15:50 |
| yoctozepto | PTG to rewrite part on l-c | 15:50 |
| yoctozepto | (Project Team Guide*) | 15:50 |
| mnaser | "Each project team may also optionally maintain a list of “lower bounds” constraints for the dependencies used to test the project in a lower-constraints.txt file." | 15:50 |
| fungi | the dependency management chapter already talks a bunch about lower bounds testing and tracking, which will need updating anyway | 15:50 |
| mnaser | we already say that it's optional | 15:51 |
| mnaser | so we can simply update the ML saying: it's optional, you can drop it if you want. | 15:51 |
| mnaser | and we don't have to make any more changes wrt to this | 15:51 |
| mnaser | (because we all seem to agree on the fact that it's optional) | 15:51 |
| yoctozepto | ah, yes, mnaser is right | 15:51 |
| yoctozepto | I would just update the PTI | 15:51 |
| yoctozepto | to mention u-c | 15:51 |
| yoctozepto | not just constraints | 15:51 |
| yoctozepto | to avoid any confusion | 15:51 |
| yoctozepto | that's that | 15:52 |
| gmann | yeah, that we can clarify for sure | 15:52 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:52 |
| gmann | only u-c will convey no l-c | 15:52 |
| yoctozepto | anyway | 15:52 |
| gmann | so 1. updating project-guide 2. ML update 3. update constraints to u-c in PTI ? | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | pti goes "Projects may opt into using the constraints in one or more of their standard targets via their tox.ini configuration." | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | "MAY OPT" | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | so we don't even require u-c | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | fwiw | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | should we clarify this? | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | and require? | 15:53 |
| mnaser | i like the steps gmann proposed | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: me too | 15:53 |
| mnaser | i think on the #3 item, we can discuss in the next meeting, id like to have time for the rest o the topics if thats ok | 15:53 |
| jungleboyj | mnaser: ++ | 15:53 |
| mnaser | so if we can move with 1 and 2.. | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: ++ | 15:54 |
| mnaser | and we can loop back on the the PTI changes next week, if that works? | 15:54 |
| gmann | +1 make sense first two we can do now | 15:54 |
| jungleboyj | WFM | 15:54 |
| mnaser | next-up: | 15:54 |
| mnaser | #topic PTL assignment for Xena cycle leaderless projects (gmann) | 15:54 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "PTL assignment for Xena cycle leaderless projects (gmann) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:54 | |
| gmann | and 3rd one in next week or PTG discussion if needed | 15:54 |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 15:55 | |
| mnaser | looks like we have most ptl appointment patches | 15:55 |
| gmann | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/xena-leaderless | 15:55 |
| mnaser | i invite tc-members to vote on them please https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open | 15:55 |
| mnaser | at least, for the appointments | 15:55 |
| gmann | we left with two projects rest other have patch up for PTL assignment | 15:56 |
| gmann | keystone and Mistral | 15:56 |
| * yoctozepto looks for the patcheeeeees | 15:56 | |
| gmann | are left | 15:56 |
| diablo_rojo | Can do! | 15:56 |
| mnaser | mistral already gave us a heads up right? | 15:56 |
| gmann | as discussed last week, i sent email on openstack-discuss but no response form Mistral team | 15:56 |
| mnaser | so we only have DPL option | 15:56 |
| gmann | mnaser: yeah, they said they will try DPL but now we need them to step up for required liasions | 15:57 |
| gmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021068.html | 15:57 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: did you push further on that mistral being a dep of tacker? | 15:57 |
| gmann | may be i need to reach out to them via personal email r meeitng if they have | 15:57 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: not yet, I can add it in Tacker meeting agenda | 15:58 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: cool, that would clear things up if mistral goes worse next cycle | 15:58 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: i informed one of the Tacker Core form my company but I think notifying them on meeting and they discuss on deps is something they can do | 15:58 |
| mnaser | so tacker is work in progress | 15:59 |
| yoctozepto | and also to notify tacker about mistral's situation | 15:59 |
| gmann | at least for long term maintenance or if they can help in Mistral | 15:59 |
| mnaser | so | 15:59 |
| mnaser | i think the other more concerning one is | 15:59 |
| mnaser | keystone | 15:59 |
| yoctozepto | ++ | 15:59 |
| gmann | eah | 15:59 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:59 |
| jungleboyj | mnaser: ++ | 15:59 |
| yoctozepto | so | 16:00 |
| diablo_rojo | Agreed | 16:00 |
| yoctozepto | dpl progress is..? | 16:00 |
| * yoctozepto could not find any mentions on the ml | 16:02 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 16:03 | |
| gmann | we can ping knikolla in case something is being discussed in keystone team. | 16:04 |
| mnaser | right | 16:04 |
| mnaser | i think we should try and move on that item | 16:04 |
| mnaser | (sorry, i got sucked into something else) | 16:04 |
| gmann | yeah | 16:04 |
| yoctozepto | gerrit looks quite calm for keystone | 16:04 |
| mnaser | for next weeks meeting | 16:04 |
| mnaser | i will start with this item first | 16:04 |
| yoctozepto | indeed | 16:04 |
| yoctozepto | (so that we don't go into PTI details beforehand) | 16:04 |
| mnaser | right | 16:05 |
| mnaser | we're a bit over time, but any really important items? | 16:05 |
| gmann | I will ping on knikolla and keystone team meanwhile | 16:05 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: great | 16:05 |
| fungi | related, has there been any more thought on what to do about the bit of the charter which advises a special election to fill the current vacancy on the tc? | 16:06 |
| yoctozepto | oh, that's important too | 16:06 |
| yoctozepto | none that I know of | 16:06 |
| fungi | if the new tc is officially seated, then that's a discussion for them to have. if the new tc is not yet seated, then maybe defer | 16:07 |
| mnaser | i've updated acls and we've merged the changes | 16:07 |
| mnaser | but going to have to be something we need to indeed discuss | 16:07 |
| mnaser | we're short on time in these meetings | 16:07 |
| mnaser | #endmeeting | 16:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Technical Committee office hours: Tuesdays at 09:00 UTC, Wednesdays at 01:00 UTC, and Thursdays at 15:00 UTC | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/ | channel logs http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/" | 16:07 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Mar 18 16:07:59 2021 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:08 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-03-18-15.01.html | 16:08 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-03-18-15.01.txt | 16:08 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-03-18-15.01.log.html | 16:08 |
| mnaser | maybe we need to switch up our topic order next week | 16:08 |
| gmann | +1 | 16:08 |
| jungleboyj | Thanks everyone! | 16:09 |
| yoctozepto | mnaser: agreed | 16:09 |
| *** Luzi has joined #openstack-tc | 17:01 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 17:11 | |
| *** rosmaita has left #openstack-tc | 17:13 | |
| *** timburke has quit IRC | 17:30 | |
| *** Luzi has quit IRC | 17:37 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:57 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:06 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:13 | |
| *** timburke has joined #openstack-tc | 18:29 | |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 18:54 | |
| *** andrewbonney has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 19:30 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 19:34 | |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:11 | |
| *** ralonsoh has quit IRC | 21:20 | |
| *** timburke has quit IRC | 21:23 | |
| *** openstackstatus has quit IRC | 21:26 | |
| *** openstack has joined #openstack-tc | 21:34 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +o openstack | 21:35 | |
| *** openstack has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| *** openstack has joined #openstack-tc | 21:37 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +o openstack | 21:37 | |
| *** openstack has joined #openstack-tc | 21:45 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +o openstack | 21:45 | |
| *** openstack has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| *** openstack has joined #openstack-tc | 22:02 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +o openstack | 22:02 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 22:06 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 22:07 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| *** iurygregory has quit IRC | 22:09 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-tc | 22:09 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!