| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Adding Gregory Thiemonge candidacy for Octavia https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/892980 | 00:32 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Vishal Manchanda candidacy for Horizon PTL(2024.1) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/892987 | 00:34 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: [JavaScript] Switch from jQuery().ready() to pure JavaScript https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893001 | 00:34 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Update render-statistics to include TC seats https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893002 | 01:31 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Update nominations_last_days templates to prompt about CIVS opt-in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893003 | 01:31 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: [JavaScript] Switch from jQuery().ready() to pure JavaScript https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893001 | 02:05 |
| opendevreview | Dr. Jens Harbott proposed openstack/election master: Add Jens Harbott (frickler) candidacy for TC https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893012 | 07:30 |
| opendevreview | Pierre Riteau proposed openstack/election master: Add Pierre Riteau's candidacy for Blazar PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893017 | 08:02 |
| opendevreview | Roman Dobosz proposed openstack/election master: Add Roman Dobosz candidacy for Kuryr 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893021 | 09:34 |
| opendevreview | Roman Dobosz proposed openstack/election master: Add Roman Dobosz candidacy for Kuryr 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893021 | 09:41 |
| frickler | dansmith: fyi, if you want your IRC nick to appear in the election candidate list, you need to add it in your foundation profile. (I just learned that I still needed to do that myself.) | 10:24 |
| frickler | today for the first time I looked at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TieBreaking, if that is still part of the official policy, both that doc and the tool should be moved into a TC owned repo? | 10:46 |
| frickler | (linked to from https://governance.openstack.org/election/#election-system) | 10:47 |
| frickler | the tool hasn't been touched since 2012, I'm a bit surprised that except for some path issue it still works with current python3, but it seems it is simple enough. also in order to make this unambigous, a version should be tagged and referenced? | 10:59 |
| opendevreview | Grzegorz Grasza proposed openstack/election master: Add Grzegorz Grasza candidacy for Barbican 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893032 | 11:13 |
| opendevreview | Hasan Acar proposed openstack/election master: Add Hasan Acar candidacy for Monasca PTL(2024.1) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893033 | 11:15 |
| fungi | frickler: someone would need to rewrite it: https://github.com/oubiwann/coin-toss/issues/1 | 11:21 |
| fungi | it's unlicensed abandonware | 11:22 |
| fungi | also the should move whatever tiebreaking process we have into actual (non-wiki) documentation in the election repo/page | 11:22 |
| frickler | oh, that complicates things a bit, but seems to make taking some kind of action even more important | 11:29 |
| fungi | i agree. we're just lucky we've never (to mu knowledge) ever ended up with a tied poll | 11:40 |
| opendevreview | Hasan Acar proposed openstack/election master: Add Hasan Acar candidacy for Monasca PTL(2024.1) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893033 | 12:27 |
| opendevreview | Hasan Acar proposed openstack/election master: Add Hasan Acar candidacy for Monasca PTL(2024.1) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893033 | 13:00 |
| dansmith | frickler: ack, thanks | 13:20 |
| opendevreview | Rafael Weingartner proposed openstack/election master: Adding Rafael Weingärtner candidacy for Cloudkitty https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893061 | 13:33 |
| opendevreview | Slawek Kaplonski proposed openstack/governance master: 2022 User Survey TC Question Analysis https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/892670 | 14:02 |
| opendevreview | Rajat Dhasmana proposed openstack/election master: Add Rajat Dhasmana candidacy for Cinder 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893065 | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Erno Kuvaja proposed openstack/election master: Add jokke candidacy for Telemetry https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893067 | 14:36 |
| opendevreview | Erno Kuvaja proposed openstack/election master: Add Erno Kuvaja (jokke) candidacy for Telemetry https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893067 | 14:37 |
| opendevreview | Carlos Eduardo proposed openstack/election master: Add Carlos da Silva candidacy to Manila PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893074 | 15:02 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Update render-statistics to include TC seats https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893002 | 15:40 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Update nominations_last_days templates to prompt about CIVS opt-in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893003 | 15:40 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: [tox] Exclude the build directory from flake8 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893083 | 15:40 |
| jamespage | knikolla: apologies but I'm not able to make the TC meeting this evening - Wiki page updated to that effect | 16:11 |
| knikolla | Jamespage: ack, thanks for notifying. | 16:16 |
| opendevreview | Yasufumi Ogawa proposed openstack/election master: Add Yasufumi Ogawa candidancy for Tacker 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893090 | 16:32 |
| opendevreview | Yasufumi Ogawa proposed openstack/election master: Add Yasufumi Ogawa candidancy for Tacker 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893090 | 16:33 |
| knikolla | tc-members: reminder for meeting in 1 hour. | 17:02 |
| opendevreview | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/election master: Add mnaser to OSH https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893093 | 17:12 |
| gmann | on elections: with 1 day remaining for nomination, we are basically left with 16 project with no nominations yet. other than these 16, we have 12 up for reviews which are not yet merged (9 valid candidacy + 3 invalid candidacy which can be appointed by TC) | 17:50 |
| spotz[m] | I sent an email out earlier offering mentoring from the community if someone new wanted to step up | 17:51 |
| opendevreview | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/election master: Add mnaser to Magnum https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893096 | 17:51 |
| gmann | timburke: election nomination deadline is tomorrow, just in case you want to continue for swift. I remember you forgot about deadline in past so thought of pinging you :) | 17:53 |
| knikolla | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Aug 29 18:00:12 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is knikolla. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 18:00 |
| knikolla | #topic Roll Call | 18:00 |
| JayF | o/ | 18:00 |
| dansmith | o/ | 18:00 |
| knikolla | o/ | 18:00 |
| knikolla | Hi all, welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee | 18:00 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:00 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 18:00 |
| knikolla | A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct | 18:00 |
| knikolla | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 18:00 |
| knikolla | We have one noted absence from jamespage | 18:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 18:00 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:00 |
| knikolla | Otherwise we’re all here :) | 18:01 |
| knikolla | #topic Follow up on past action items | 18:01 |
| knikolla | No items noted as to follow up. | 18:01 |
| knikolla | #topic Gate health check | 18:01 |
| knikolla | Any updates on the state of the gate? | 18:01 |
| gmann | I have not observed any frequent failure this week. it is much better | 18:01 |
| slaweq | I think it is much better recently | 18:02 |
| knikolla | Great to hear that! | 18:02 |
| dansmith | things are better, I no longer fear for the rc phase | 18:02 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:02 |
| dansmith | however, all the same volume fails are occurring | 18:02 |
| dansmith | and I hope that work can continue on getting those to improve | 18:02 |
| dansmith | I'd say we're back to Dec 2022 levels of fail ;) | 18:02 |
| knikolla | #success Improvement on the state of the gate and no more fear for RC phase. | 18:03 |
| opendevstatus | knikolla: Added success to Success page (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Successes) | 18:03 |
| fungi | we had a stale centos 7/8 mirror for most of a week owing to the file count in some directories exceeding afs's protocol limits. we started filtering out i686 rpms on our mirrors which worked around it, but just a heads up that if jobs need multi-arch packages for i686 stuff on x86_64, there could be new errors due to missing packages | 18:03 |
| fungi | the odds of that seemed low enough we risked it | 18:04 |
| fungi | also all zuul tenants except openstack have switched to ansible 8 for running zuul jobs by default | 18:04 |
| clarkb | it was also broken anyway | 18:04 |
| clarkb | (so risk was low we'd break the mirrors and the centos node further) | 18:05 |
| fungi | no reports of problems with ansible 8 as of yet | 18:05 |
| dansmith | I'd like to report a problem with ansible 8 | 18:05 |
| fungi | and i think clarkb did a test of devstack/tempest with it | 18:05 |
| * fungi directs dansmith to the suggestion box | 18:06 | |
| dansmith | okay, I have no actual problems to report, I'd just *like* it if I had one to report | 18:06 |
| clarkb | yes I pushed a change to tempest to run devstack + tempest jobs under ansible 8 and none of the jobs failed due to ansible problems. A coupel non voting jobs failed in the test suite | 18:06 |
| clarkb | Due to the lack of trouble so far we're planning to swap openstack over on Monday (its a holiday for some so should be slightly quieter) and see if we can just roll forward from there | 18:06 |
| clarkb | if we run into major problems we can revert, but you can also test things ahead of time just like I did with tempest if you are worried about something in particular. Finally this was all sent to the service-announce@lists.opendev.org list which you'll want to subscribe to if you aren't already | 18:07 |
| fungi | there's a security fix being backported to some em branches of oslo.messaging which is meeting with issues in some jobs, prognosis unclear yet but the solution may end up being disabling some jobs/tests there | 18:07 |
| JayF | fungi: some weird docs failure that doesn't reproduce locally, at least in stable/wallaby | 18:07 |
| clarkb | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/892981 <- testing tempest with ansible 8 | 18:08 |
| fungi | JayF: yeah, we can definitely still dig deeper, but it may end up being an "opportunity" to exercise the option of disabling some jobs if the solution is nontrivial | 18:08 |
| JayF | ++ | 18:09 |
| dansmith | if we can't build docs though... | 18:09 |
| JayF | Wallaby is going to be retired as soon as we take action on the unmaintained resolution, yeah? | 18:09 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:09 |
| JayF | So it seems very nonimpactful to break the docs build when no docs are getting updated (I doubt we'll have a doc update in the next ~month) | 18:09 |
| dansmith | yeah, fine with just dumping wallaby, I meant probably not good to disable the docs job and merge to wallaby anyway | 18:10 |
| dansmith | since it won't actually get a doc update saying it has the fix | 18:10 |
| JayF | That's releasenotes, not docs | 18:10 |
| fungi | odds are it's related to something like tox v4 that just never got fixes backported and nobody's noticed until now | 18:10 |
| JayF | yeah that's my hunch too fungi | 18:10 |
| gmann | it will be not opt-in by default not if anyone opt-in manually then it will stay not retire | 18:10 |
| gmann | *but if | 18:10 |
| gmann | but doc on stable branches does not run with tox4. I think we pinned that | 18:11 |
| noonedeadpunk | there was recent issue with constraints for docs, but no idea if that's the case | 18:12 |
| fungi | yeah, so likely something else or the pin didn't get applied | 18:12 |
| JayF | I appreciate the dogpile of assistance, I'll paste the patch here post-meeting if folks want to offer suggestions | 18:12 |
| JayF | probably not best to fix it in meeting :D | 18:13 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:13 |
| knikolla | ++ | 18:13 |
| fungi | right, i mainly wanted to point out that we do see some bitrot on em branches which complicate merging security fixes (not that we require them anyway) | 18:13 |
| knikolla | With Wallaby going away soon, we shouldn’t spend too much time on it | 18:14 |
| * JayF needs to get the patch working downstsream in Victoria; it's just a question of if it's upstream too | 18:14 | |
| knikolla | Anything else on the topic of the gate? | 18:15 |
| knikolla | #topic 2022 user survey analysis | 18:15 |
| knikolla | Thanks slaweq for getting that done :) | 18:16 |
| knikolla | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/892670/ | 18:16 |
| slaweq | it's not done yet definitely :) | 18:16 |
| knikolla | started :) | 18:16 |
| slaweq | thx gmann for first review, I will address those comments tomorrow | 18:16 |
| gmann | slaweq: thanks for working on that. | 18:16 |
| knikolla | I will review that later today as well. Anything that you feel worth highlighting slaweq? | 18:17 |
| slaweq | and JFYI: it's not ready for sure but numbers are correct in each table there | 18:17 |
| slaweq | generally numbers are very similar to last year | 18:17 |
| slaweq | one thing which I didn't saw in previous year but I saw in numbers this year are projects which have users using something in production but no contributors | 18:18 |
| gmann | that is important questions | 18:19 |
| slaweq | this is something what we should maybe potentially check closer and maybe somehow reach out to those users to make them aware of that potential problem | 18:19 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:19 |
| knikolla | seems more relevant now than ever with the amount of projects that have no PTL candidacies with ~1 days to end of nomination period | 18:19 |
| fungi | you mean like the software is in use but the software is no longer an official part of openstack/retired, or still official projects with no development activity upstream at all? | 18:19 |
| gmann | I think it is users of OpenStack projects not contributing in upstream at all | 18:20 |
| slaweq | fungi some of those projects are still official projects now and there is 0 declared contributors | 18:20 |
| slaweq | of course, it may be that contributors to those projects didn't made survey | 18:20 |
| fungi | as in contributors declared within the survey (there may still be contributors not connected to any survey responses)? | 18:21 |
| slaweq | I'm just saying about what I saw in the survey results for now | 18:21 |
| gmann | or there might be case they are contributing in a few of them but not all they are using | 18:21 |
| knikolla | but it points to an opportunity to make them aware of the lack of contributors in the survey. | 18:22 |
| slaweq | so I'm not saying it's any "red flag", just something potentially to check closer :) | 18:22 |
| gmann | I think these details are little hard to get from the survey and the reason of not contributing but survey result can be good first step and as slaweq mentioned to plan the reachout to them about knowing the reason and helping them to start the contributiion | 18:22 |
| knikolla | Perhaps the under-NDA version of the survey has more useful information that we can use for outreach? | 18:23 |
| knikolla | survey results* | 18:23 |
| slaweq | knikolla I have no idea :) | 18:23 |
| slaweq | the other interesting thing is response about "difficult process" for the question about "What prevents you or your organization from contributing more maintenance resources" - it was in top 5 of the answers to that question | 18:24 |
| slaweq | I will make try to find more precise answers from that "category" and put them in the survey | 18:24 |
| gmann | humm | 18:24 |
| slaweq | because it is open question and for now I just tried to somehow aggregate them into some common "types of answers" | 18:25 |
| gmann | and it will be nice to give more thoughts/discussion on those in video call or PTG | 18:25 |
| spotz[m] | The under NDA version may or may not have enough information to link who responded. That version also is pre-cleaning up of wording so while one person says community engagement, the next says engagement, and a third says community and we try to see if they're saying the same thing | 18:25 |
| knikolla | thanks spotz. | 18:26 |
| knikolla | By process do they mean Gerrit/Devstack/Zuul, or internal organization processes? | 18:26 |
| knikolla | We’ve spent a significant chunk of time in past PTGs talking about Devstack | 18:26 |
| slaweq | thx spotz | 18:26 |
| slaweq | knikolla I will need to get back to it and I will write a bit more details about that in the analysis | 18:27 |
| slaweq | for now I don't remember really | 18:27 |
| slaweq | that's basically all from me about this analysis for today | 18:28 |
| knikolla | Thanks slaweq! | 18:28 |
| gmann | well devstack/testing is anyways not going to be very easy things anytime and especially seeing gate stability and so it might give new contributors a not very easy welcome but I think that is same in any OSS | 18:28 |
| knikolla | especially of our scale. | 18:29 |
| JayF | I kinda disagree? I've personally spoken with several openstack operators who indicated they didn't want to learn a new process (versus the 'typical' github+pr development process) to push a small patch | 18:29 |
| gmann | yeah. writing code is easy, testing them is hard | 18:29 |
| gmann | I am just taking about testing things. other process are good to discuss and how we can simplify | 18:29 |
| fungi | most people who don't contribute to open source projects would cite difficult process as being the reason, whether that's because the projects require code review, detailed commit messages, test-driven development, whatever | 18:30 |
| dansmith | yeah, nothing new in that regard | 18:30 |
| gmann | commit message is good example also. we need detail and correct commit msg and not everyone like to do that :) | 18:30 |
| dansmith | I personally place a very high value on tested code, especially for situations we can't otherwise replicate, which is the majority of the drive-by can't-write-a-test submissions I've seen | 18:30 |
| gmann | agree | 18:31 |
| knikolla | perhaps being on Gerrit will save us from the incoming ChatGPT powered drive-by happening on GitHub. | 18:31 |
| spotz[m] | hehe | 18:31 |
| slaweq | ++ | 18:31 |
| knikolla | :) | 18:32 |
| JayF | knikolla: that blade does cut in both directions, you're right, but at this point I'd rather have low-quality submissions that we can curate/mentor into good submissions than very little external contribution at all :/ | 18:32 |
| dansmith | I wouldn't. | 18:32 |
| gmann | IMOI, that is dangerous and introduce more instability in openstack | 18:32 |
| fungi | it's being used to generate reputations for dummy accounts used to inflate "star" counts on projects (there are paid services behind most of the gold rush) | 18:33 |
| knikolla | Yeah, I’m torn on the subject. Most of my open source work is on GitHub with the exception of OpenStack, so I live in both worlds. | 18:33 |
| gmann | if anyone using openstack and have customer base I do not think it is hard to learn process and write test of the software used in their procduction | 18:33 |
| knikolla | We do really need to work on mentoring new contributors, but we’ve had retention problems for the ones we have. | 18:34 |
| spotz[m] | I have had contributions rejected in PR because I have too many commits because Gerrit allows me to patch on top of my patches. I love gerit:) | 18:34 |
| gmann | retention problem due to process? or change in their role in company ? | 18:34 |
| *** melwitt_ is now known as melwitt | 18:34 | |
| JayF | I'm not even trying to say we should change; I'm just saying we need to acknowledge we're paying a steep price to have a unique process. | 18:35 |
| knikolla | change in role, mostly, I think. | 18:35 |
| fungi | quite a lot of the latter, helping find new employment opportunities for established contributors who want to keep working on openstack would go a long way | 18:35 |
| spotz[m] | Well we used to do OUI and the Git and Gerrit lunch and learn to help onboard people at events | 18:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | For real - I never think that gerrit vs github will really prevent contributions. If person can not read 1 paper of doc on how to contribute because reading is too hard - we hardly need such contributors | 18:36 |
| gmann | yeah, that is what I observed otherwise anyone started knowing process and contribution is not leaving because they hate openstack process. | 18:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | As mentoring them is fighting with windmills | 18:36 |
| spotz[m] | It's more the config noonedeadpunk | 18:36 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: exactly | 18:36 |
| fungi | i contribute to projects on at least half a dozen different code review platforms, and i'm not even a full-time developer | 18:37 |
| JayF | noonedeadpunk: the people I interact with who have trouble are usually people who are operating openstack and want to contribute functional fixes up; gerrit requires at a base level a stronger understanding of git than github does | 18:37 |
| noonedeadpunk | though missing ability to make a chain of patches will affect dramatically | 18:37 |
| JayF | noonedeadpunk: I've been proxying some of those changes up personally when I understand enough to | 18:37 |
| noonedeadpunk | Not sure how about you, but I do create couple of chains weekly | 18:37 |
| gmann | I think it is all about which company want to spend time/money i upstream activity vs real reason of difficult process | 18:37 |
| gmann | *in upstream | 18:37 |
| noonedeadpunk | JayF: I do disagree here completely. That github requires less knowledge of git | 18:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | For me it's way-way-way higher bar of knowing git | 18:38 |
| JayF | noonedeadpunk: We shouldn't have that argument here, I'll sidebar with you if you don't mind | 18:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | As you must know how to sync your fork with upstream, so configure upstream at very least | 18:38 |
| knikolla | Deep down I think it’s more about visibility than the actual tool used. GitHub can drive further job opportunities in a way that developing in a siloed code review tool can’t. | 18:39 |
| spotz[m] | I'm with noonedeadpunk on this but let's get back to the main topic | 18:39 |
| knikolla | I’ll make a note to amend the contributors guide to explain how to make openstack commits appear in people’s GitHub profile. | 18:39 |
| knikolla | With that, let’s move on to the next topic. | 18:40 |
| knikolla | #topic Documenting implementation processes for Unmaintained | 18:40 |
| knikolla | A quick update from me. I started amending the project team guide for the new process | 18:41 |
| knikolla | specifically the stable branches page. | 18:41 |
| knikolla | I’m detailing the process of opt-in to Unmaintained, which we briefly touched upon last week | 18:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | knikolla: and for visability we have bitergia now :) | 18:41 |
| knikolla | That will be a -1 to the releases patch to EOL the branch from the PTL or release liaison. | 18:42 |
| knikolla | If no -1 is posted within a 4 week period, the branch for the project goes EOL and not into unmaintained. | 18:42 |
| knikolla | This seems to align with the tooling and the way we EOL things now, so it will not take significant resources to implement. | 18:43 |
| JayF | ++ | 18:43 |
| knikolla | I hope to get the wording done by the end of this week. | 18:44 |
| gmann | you mean this process after first automatic opt-in right? means when unmaintained move to next term of being unmaintained | 18:44 |
| knikolla | yes. | 18:44 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:44 |
| gmann | 4 week seems reasonable time considering anyone on PTO/holiday etc | 18:45 |
| knikolla | this also allows for opt-out to happen with the same mechanism of a patch to releases. | 18:45 |
| knikolla | and can be done at any point. | 18:45 |
| knikolla | that’s all from me on the topic. | 18:46 |
| JayF | this all sounds reasonable to me +1 thank you | 18:46 |
| knikolla | #topic Open Discussion and Reviews | 18:47 |
| knikolla | It’s time to register for the vPTG | 18:47 |
| knikolla | #link https://openinfra.dev/ptg/ | 18:47 |
| clarkb | sean just pointed out in #openstack-qa that tox seems to be exploding on something. Possibly pep517 and/or pbr related | 18:47 |
| slaweq | I just did :) thx for reminder | 18:47 |
| clarkb | not sure what the actual issue is or how widespread it is. Will likely need someone to debug (it is likely reproduceable locally given it is fialing in a tox step) | 18:48 |
| spotz[m] | done! | 18:49 |
| spotz[m] | Did you get the TC added to the teams list?:) | 18:49 |
| knikolla | yes | 18:49 |
| knikolla | thanks spotz! | 18:50 |
| spotz[m] | Welcome:) | 18:51 |
| knikolla | Alright, thanks all! | 18:51 |
| knikolla | #endmeeting | 18:51 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Aug 29 18:51:17 2023 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:51 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-08-29-18.00.html | 18:51 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-08-29-18.00.txt | 18:51 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-08-29-18.00.log.html | 18:51 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:51 |
| slaweq | thx knikolla \ | 18:51 |
| spotz[m] | thanks knikolla | 18:51 |
| noonedeadpunk | thanks! | 18:53 |
| JayF | re: oslo.messaging security fix for stable/wallaby -- https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.messaging/+/891746 is the change https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/fe4e477a574743c7a9a1cdd48f249afb/log/job-output.txt#2091 is where it fails, the error is "AttributeError: 'EntryPoint' object has no attribute 'module'". It passes locally. | 18:55 |
| JayF | I suspect sphinx version shenanigans based on how it's failing in the middle? But I'm unsure why that wouldn't be apparently locally, too | 18:56 |
| fungi | you should be able to see what version of sphinx the log says is getting installed | 18:57 |
| JayF | 7.2.4 on local passing vs 7.1.2 in the gate | 18:57 |
| fungi | so probably not that | 18:58 |
| JayF | yeah | 18:58 |
| JayF | hmm I'm testing locally with a different python | 18:58 |
| JayF | let me see if I can match python versions | 18:58 |
| * JayF trying under 3.8; local passes were under 3.11 | 18:59 | |
| JayF | passes, of course | 19:00 |
| JayF | fungi: any easy way to see tox version *zuul* has installed on that test run? | 19:02 |
| fungi | did it collect tox logs? | 19:03 |
| JayF | yes | 19:03 |
| fungi | does tox not log its version? | 19:03 |
| JayF | Because it often will upgrade itself, I was going to find the source information | 19:03 |
| JayF | it is installing tox<4 | 19:03 |
| fungi | otherwise, the output from the ensure-tox tasks in the console view may | 19:03 |
| JayF | so it passes on tox 4.10 locally, fails in gate on tox<4, I think I know what to test :D | 19:05 |
| clarkb | fungi: yes ensure tox should. I just looked at that for the current tox issue | 19:05 |
| JayF | 2023-08-28 15:04:34.136182 | TASK [ensure-tox : Output tox version] | 19:05 |
| JayF | 2023-08-28 15:04:34.578723 | ubuntu-focal | 3.28.0 imported from /home/zuul/.local/tox/lib/python3.8/site-packages/tox/__init__.py | 19:05 |
| JayF | once I found the right lines it was a stupid question :D | 19:05 |
| JayF | passes locally with tox 3.28.0 :( | 19:06 |
| fungi | JayF: see if you have something installed that isn't in the pip freeze from the gate. that error looks like it's trying to import oslo.messaging.notify.drivers and there's something not installed that it's trying to enumerate | 19:19 |
| JayF | yep, I just got a reproduction locally | 19:20 |
| JayF | > ImportError: cannot import name 'fnmatch' from 'oslo_utils' (/home/jay/dev/oslo.messaging/.tox/docs/lib/python3.8/site-packages/oslo_utils/__init__.py) | 19:21 |
| JayF | is the root error | 19:21 |
| JayF | looking into the sphinx traceback | 19:21 |
| JayF | https://github.com/openstack/oslo.utils/blob/a5941e8f845534e3604dacf2dfa9a87d224eeef8/releasenotes/notes/remove-fnmatch-f227b54f237a02c2.yaml#L3 | 19:22 |
| JayF | we need to cap the oslo.utils version in oslo.messaging | 19:22 |
| JayF | looks like we need <6.0.0 | 19:22 |
| gmann | it should have capped to lower compatible version in wallaby upper-constraints right ? | 19:25 |
| JayF | I stacked https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.messaging/+/893107 onto https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.messaging/+/891746 | 19:25 |
| JayF | gmann: potentially, yeah | 19:25 |
| JayF | gmann: https://opendev.org/openstack/requirements/raw/branch/stable/wallaby/upper-constraints.txt hmm | 19:25 |
| JayF | gmann: the docs build is not obeying constraints, nice catch | 19:26 |
| gmann | yeah, somehow it is picking latest version | 19:26 |
| JayF | gmann: yeah, it's not set to obey it in tox | 19:28 |
| JayF | nice pointer | 19:28 |
| fungi | https://opendev.org/openstack/oslo.messaging/src/branch/stable/wallaby/tox.ini#L40 | 19:28 |
| gmann | yeah, no constraints here https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/stable/wallaby/upper-constraints.txt#L566 | 19:28 |
| gmann | https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging/blob/stable/wallaby/tox.ini#L40 | 19:28 |
| JayF | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.messaging/+/893108 + https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.messaging/+/893108 should be the magic | 19:28 |
| fungi | the stable/wallaby tox.ini for oslo.messaging doesn't apply constraints for the docs testenv | 19:28 |
| gmann | yeah that one, we should add constraint there otherwise it will fail one some other versions | 19:28 |
| JayF | Yep, we all got there around the same time :) my change reflects the right fix | 19:29 |
| JayF | and the req change directly into oslo.messaging is abandoned | 19:29 |
| gmann | +1 | 19:29 |
| fungi | now to refocus on the tox problem mentioned in #openstack-qa | 19:30 |
| JayF | fungi: need help? | 19:30 |
| JayF | I'm not looking at that now but can return the favor if you think it's helpful :D | 19:30 |
| fungi | JayF: seems like folks have zeroed in on the problem package release at least | 19:30 |
| JayF | ack; I'll not spoil the broth with another chef | 19:30 |
| fungi | i can't look too closely until after the opendev meetings wraps up | 19:31 |
| JayF | well you and gmann were very helpful to me just now; I appreciate it :D now to go feed the cat as he's trying to fix bugs on my keyboard, too :D | 19:31 |
| opendevreview | Guilherme proposed openstack/election master: Adding gsteinmuller candidacy for TC https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893110 | 20:09 |
| opendevreview | Guilherme proposed openstack/election master: Adding gsteinmuller candidacy for TC https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893110 | 20:10 |
| opendevreview | Vladimir Kozhukalov proposed openstack/election master: Add Vladimir Kozhukalov as Openstack-Helm PTL for 2024.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893113 | 22:14 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Carlos da Silva candidacy to Manila PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893074 | 22:35 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Erno Kuvaja (jokke) candidacy for Telemetry https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893067 | 22:35 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Rajat Dhasmana candidacy for Cinder 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893065 | 22:35 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Adding Rafael Weingärtner candidacy for Cloudkitty https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893061 | 22:35 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Roman Dobosz candidacy for Kuryr 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893021 | 22:37 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Jens Harbott (frickler) candidacy for TC https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893012 | 22:37 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Pierre Riteau's candidacy for Blazar PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893017 | 22:38 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Grzegorz Grasza candidacy for Barbican 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893032 | 22:38 |
| opendevreview | Dale Smith proposed openstack/election master: Add Dale Smith candidacy for Adjutant 2024.1 PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893115 | 23:30 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!