| mnasiadka | JayF: Is it possible to add https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/910240 to openstack-tc meeting today? Magnum would like to move forward with this - I will be also available during tc meeting time if required | 11:28 |
|---|---|---|
| JayF | tc-members: please take a look at open governance reviews before the meeting today if possible. mnasiadka has specifically requested reviews on 910240. https://review.opendev.org/q/repo:openstack/governance+status:open | 14:34 |
| mnasiadka | thanks :) | 14:35 |
| JayF | mnasiadka: it just needs reviews, I've asked for some. if it crosses the required threshold I'll land it | 14:35 |
| mnasiadka | the repo patch is merged already today - so the governance patch is not so urgent anymore - but it would be good to get it merged :) | 14:35 |
| dansmith | FYI I'm traveling today and will have to drop out of the meeting a bit early | 14:52 |
| JayF | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Mar 12 18:00:11 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is JayF. 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 |
| JayF | Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. | 18:00 |
| JayF | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee. | 18:00 |
| JayF | #topic Roll Call | 18:00 |
| JayF | o/ | 18:00 |
| frickler | \o | 18:00 |
| dansmith | o/ | 18:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:00 |
| jamespage | o/ | 18:00 |
| JayF | #info No expected absences noted on the agenda. | 18:00 |
| JayF | I'll give a few minutes for remaining tc-members to arrive | 18:01 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 18:01 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:01 |
| JayF | I'm going to continue with the seven of us :) | 18:02 |
| JayF | Skipping topic Follow up on Tracked Action items, there are none to follow up on | 18:03 |
| JayF | #topic Gate Health Check | 18:03 |
| dansmith | not terrible of late, but basically all the underlying issues are still there I think | 18:04 |
| JayF | Ironic has been aggressively trying to fix/keep our gate working. | 18:04 |
| dansmith | I have yet to try to examine our job that is running with extra swap and zswap to see how it's helping or not | 18:04 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:04 |
| JayF | I did get a response to my email calling for help with the gate, I am working with the people involved to get their permission to make their offer public | 18:04 |
| gmann | yeah, I will say much better considering the release time | 18:04 |
| slaweq | I started slowly looking at the main reasons of rechecks - I hope to have some data this or next week and I will send email about it | 18:05 |
| frickler | there were some issues due to release candidates, but I think they should mostly be fixed by now | 18:05 |
| JayF | slaweq: I'll be very interested to see that for sure :D | 18:05 |
| JayF | Is there anything else to talk about here or should we move on? | 18:05 |
| JayF | #topic Implementation of Unmaintained Branch Statuses | 18:06 |
| JayF | how goes the great branch rename of 2024? :D | 18:06 |
| frickler | steadily proceeding I'd say | 18:06 |
| frickler | sadly not much feedback on the questions I posted last week | 18:06 |
| JayF | What questions/venue specifically? Just wanna make sure they get in the log if you have a link | 18:07 |
| frickler | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/unmaintained-release-issues | 18:08 |
| frickler | yeah, was looking for that already, bad preparation | 18:08 |
| gmann | frickler: i opened it last week but then forgot to add feedback. I will do this week (most probably today/tomorrow) | 18:08 |
| JayF | I updated the Ironic patch to try and move that forward, I have that etherpad open and will try to make a look at the others. | 18:09 |
| JayF | frickler: can we get that mailed out to the list for a larger audience? | 18:09 |
| frickler | I'm sure you can if you want | 18:10 |
| JayF | I'm just going to move on. | 18:10 |
| fungi | i'll note there's still been limited communication (as far as i've seen) on how to get involved with/grow the openstack-unmaintained-core group, which has led to some projects growing impatient and adding their own acls in order to be able to merge changes | 18:10 |
| frickler | ah, yes, I kind of keep seeing devstack bugs about it, too | 18:11 |
| frickler | so soon there also needs to be a discussion about when to consider EOLing stuff | 18:11 |
| JayF | Would the PTG be good timing/venue for that discussion? | 18:12 |
| gmann | added response for tempest/its plugins cases. | 18:12 |
| frickler | not the worst one I'd say | 18:12 |
| JayF | I added some notes about it in the PTG planning etherpad. | 18:13 |
| JayF | fungi: I believe there was a call to action to do that, I think project team guide was to be updated, then emails sent | 18:13 |
| JayF | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817 | 18:13 |
| JayF | 2x +2 but not yet workflowed | 18:14 |
| JayF | it seems like it'd be helpful to get that landed and an email sent out | 18:14 |
| fungi | yeah, in hindsight, we shouldn't have renamed branches until the process for adding people to review changes was decided and in place | 18:14 |
| fungi | instead it's led to a lot of impatience and projects taking the path of least resistance rather than waiting for further guidance | 18:14 |
| fungi | which adds to overall technical debt | 18:15 |
| frickler | fungi: well if any volunteer showed up, they could be added to the gerrit group | 18:15 |
| frickler | but I haven't heard any interest so far | 18:15 |
| fungi | volunteers keep showing up, but don't know how to ask to be added | 18:15 |
| dansmith | where are they showing up? | 18:16 |
| gmann | yeah, did not see at least in ML | 18:16 |
| frickler | just ping the existing team members as usual | 18:16 |
| fungi | mostly by proposing acl changes for their projects to get control of those branches because nobody's been approving the changes on them | 18:16 |
| fungi | and then we point out that there's already a group with access to do that they could be added to instead | 18:16 |
| dansmith | okay I'm not sure that's the same thing | 18:16 |
| dansmith | I mean, it might be, but... | 18:16 |
| frickler | all acl changes I have seen were from people who explicitly did not want to add themselves to the global group | 18:17 |
| gmann | but the process is also not different and hidden also, just - "ask member of the group on how to be added" | 18:17 |
| fungi | and they wait for further instructions from the (two?) people who currently comprise that group but it never comes | 18:17 |
| fungi | so then they move forward with the original acl request instead | 18:17 |
| JayF | The path out of this is landing 910817 (linked above) and ensuring that path is as clear as possible | 18:17 |
| JayF | how we got here matters less than getting to a better place | 18:18 |
| frickler | even without being core, they could do thinks like propose CI fixes | 18:18 |
| frickler | *things | 18:18 |
| fungi | but not approvethem. the main concern i've seen raised is that the changes are sitting there unapproved | 18:18 |
| JayF | As I understand it, these are core reviewers seeing patches on branches they don't have votes on, trying to resolve their ability to vote on them. | 18:19 |
| gmann | yeah, if something they proposed and not merging then we can say we are blocking them | 18:19 |
| JayF | I had similar upset contributors in Ironic at one point because I botched the ACL we added for ironic-cores. | 18:19 |
| spotz[m] | Can there be a bakcup plan to get people added if no response? | 18:19 |
| frickler | well I'd certainly add anyone who asks for it, assuming someone known within the community | 18:20 |
| gmann | but anyways we can merge 910817 soon as no objection on that or if anything need more clarity than can be done later | 18:20 |
| fungi | i didn't really want to be involved in unmaintained branches, but at this point i'm willing to just add anyone to that group myself if they ask, assuming that's acceptable | 18:20 |
| JayF | I'm in that group and would basically take the same approach fungi says (Just adding people), but IMO the right path forward, as gmann has also said, is to land https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817 | 18:20 |
| fungi | because it might be less work for me than dealing with the additional acl changes | 18:21 |
| gmann | well if no response then existing group needs to be cleaned up so it is kind of re-activation of this global group which can happen anytime or like to any other core group also | 18:21 |
| JayF | fungi: if they are a core in a preexisting OpenStack project, I am +2 to it. If not I'm like, +0.5 lol | 18:21 |
| frickler | JayF: yes, some proven experience with gerrit and zuul would be expected IMO | 18:22 |
| fungi | anyway, i didn't want to derail, just pointing out that not prioritizing completing the process document/guidance is leading to additional work for some people and accumulation of tech debt | 18:22 |
| JayF | It seems like we have clear paths forward: 1) land https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817, 2) review and try to get fixes for issues documented here https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/unmaintained-release-issues | 18:23 |
| JayF | both of those are doable; is there any other actionable suggestions before we move on?> | 18:23 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:23 |
| fungi | because people don't want to wait for further instructions, they just want whatever will get them back to approving changes soonest | 18:23 |
| JayF | #topic Testing runtime for 2024.2 release | 18:24 |
| JayF | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/908862 | 18:24 |
| JayF | I believe this currently has enough support to merge once the waiting period has completed (it should be landable by EOD). | 18:24 |
| JayF | Please cast your vote there if you haven't already | 18:25 |
| JayF | Is there any discussion needed related to this? | 18:25 |
| frickler | all said and done I guess | 18:26 |
| gmann | nothing from me too. mentioned plan sounds good | 18:26 |
| gmann | I will work on generic job template change after it merge | 18:27 |
| JayF | I'm sorry we couldn't get to a point where we have unanimous consensus, but I'm glad we're going to have a runtime defined for the next release. | 18:27 |
| JayF | Thanks for all the participation | 18:27 |
| JayF | #topic TC vPTG 2024.2 | 18:27 |
| JayF | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-os-tc | 18:27 |
| JayF | I also tentatively booked us some time in line with times from last cycle | 18:27 |
| JayF | Please let me know if any of the booked times for os-tc on https://ptg.opendev.org/ptg.html (Monday, Tuesday, Friday) are a hardship. | 18:28 |
| JayF | and if you have any topics for discussion, please add them to the etherpad | 18:28 |
| frickler | s/Tuesday/Thursday/ | 18:28 |
| JayF | #topic Open Discussion and Reviews | 18:28 |
| JayF | #undo | 18:28 |
| opendevmeet | Removing item from minutes: #topic Open Discussion and Reviews | 18:28 |
| JayF | frickler: that is correct | 18:29 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: Add NOTE about becoming Unmaintained core team member https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817 | 18:29 |
| JayF | Wow, I really want to "Tuesday" these, don't I. That's the second time I've made that specific mistake. | 18:29 |
| JayF | Moving on | 18:29 |
| JayF | #topic Open Discussion and Reviews | 18:29 |
| JayF | I'll note that mnasiadka asked we particularly try to get https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/910240 landed for magnum | 18:30 |
| spotz[m] | I'll be up at Texas Linux Fest as an organizer on Friday but I was just going to find a quiet place to sit for it | 18:30 |
| JayF | In general, we have a lot of governance patches up, shortly after lunch I'll be landing any eligible patches | 18:30 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: Where in TX is that? | 18:30 |
| spotz[m] | Austin at the Palmer events center | 18:31 |
| slaweq | I may have to leave a bit earlier on Friday | 18:31 |
| JayF | ah, I don't know anyone up that way but I hope you have a good time o/ | 18:31 |
| slaweq | but other than that it's good for me | 18:31 |
| JayF | alright | 18:31 |
| JayF | Giving a couple minutes for new items for open discussion or further chat on any open topic before closing the meeting | 18:32 |
| frickler | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817 merged, how can you not love projects with a fast CI stack :) | 18:33 |
| JayF | That's the exact kinda positive note we should leave on :D \o/ | 18:33 |
| JayF | #endmeeting | 18:33 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Mar 12 18:33:49 2024 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:33 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-03-12-18.00.html | 18:33 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-03-12-18.00.txt | 18:33 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-03-12-18.00.log.html | 18:33 |
| jamespage | thanks for chairing JayF | 18:34 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:34 |
| spotz[m] | Thanks Jay | 18:34 |
| fungi | i probably should have reviewed that, it doesn't say exactly how to go about contacting the existing members of openstack-unmaintained-core, but presumably any informal method suffices including just asking them in irc | 18:34 |
| fungi | at least that's what i'll assume unless i hear to the contrary | 18:35 |
| JayF | I think with it being me/elod/jens right now, it's unlikely someone wouldn't be able to find us | 18:35 |
| fungi | oh, did tonyb drop back out of the group? | 18:36 |
| JayF | oh, maybe he's in too? | 18:36 |
| JayF | I only listed who I knew | 18:36 |
| fungi | https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/openstack-unmaintained-core,members | 18:36 |
| fungi | yeah, looks like tony is in there | 18:36 |
| JayF | ah, okay | 18:37 |
| fungi | it's up to 4 now | 18:37 |
| JayF | and now hopefully we can get more people with a recruitment email | 18:37 |
| frickler | oh, I missed Nicolas getting added, nice | 18:39 |
| elodilles | Nicolas requested membership via direct mail to me and Tony some weeks ago and since we didn't have a clear process i just looked quickly his review history and linked him the stable policy page and added him to the group. i guess the main difference will be that we ask people to send a mail directly to the ML (which reminds me i have to update my patch describing the Unmaintained group) | 19:18 |
| fungi | that does seem like a lot more overhead than i was expecting/hoping for. with stable-maint the problem was that people would ask on the ml and then days would go by or their request would get missed entirely even | 19:20 |
| fungi | would be nice if unmaintained was a lower barrier to entry | 19:20 |
| elodilles | hmmm, i thought - based on the reviews on my patch - that a mail to ML would be more transparent | 19:21 |
| elodilles | OK the patch was merged recently o:) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817 | 19:23 |
| fungi | right, that's the change i'm talking about, it doesn't say anything about the mailing list, only a vague "contact the team" | 19:25 |
| fungi | so i had hoped (based on the lack of specificity there) that asking a current team member in irc to add you should suffice | 19:25 |
| fungi | as opposed to starting a discussion on the ml and presumably having to get some sort of consensus from the team or something | 19:26 |
| fungi | and as for stable branch policy, not all projects follow it for their own stable branches, so applying it to unmaintained branches seems even less necessay | 19:27 |
| fungi | necessary | 19:27 |
| elodilles | that's another point of view. interesting to hear that. | 19:28 |
| elodilles | though as a stable maintainer, i'd rather require unmaintainers to keep the policy, despite not every project follows it. hmmm. | 19:29 |
| fungi | but also, these branches are unmaintained. the rigor of maintained stable branches seems like unwarranted effort and overhead for something that is expressly unmaintained | 19:30 |
| elodilles | and yes, the ML is not mentioned in the patch, but was mentioned on the comments, hence i thought we might want to add it | 19:31 |
| fungi | i'm not seeing much point to having a separate unmaintained branch if we then go and apply basically the same amount of effort on those that makes us not want to have more maintained stable branches to begin with | 19:31 |
| fungi | that is, if the goal is for unmaintained branches to require less attention and effort | 19:32 |
| elodilles | fungi: in my understanding the whole point of 'unmaintained' state is to eliminate projects' responsibility of these very old branches. on the other hand, the reason to keep them is to have a common place for cooperation for people who still want to do some kind of a maintenance. if we say that there are no rules, then the whole point is lost as nobody can safely consume anything from those | 19:34 |
| elodilles | unmaintained/* branches :/ | 19:34 |
| fungi | right, i didn't say no rules, but there could certainly be a lighter set of rules than forcing stable branch policy onto unmaintained branches of projects that weren't even relying on stable branch policy for their stable branches | 19:35 |
| elodilles | that's a fair point for projects that didn't follow stable policy, true. but only for them, i'd say | 19:37 |
| fungi | if stable branches of some inactive projects have broken jobs blocking cleanup changes, would the tc prefer opendev sysadmins remove those projects from zuul or bypass gating to merge the blocked cleanup changes? | 23:20 |
| fungi | case in point: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/solum/+/912675 | 23:20 |
| fungi | deleting the affected branches could also be an option, but we're trying to have this done by friday of this week | 23:22 |
| fungi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-vpnaas/+/912666 might be a more concerning example since it's for stable/zed. i don't really want to get into fixing neutron-vpnaas's pep8 job | 23:25 |
| fungi | a third option is to just not try to clean this up in advance and see what happens on friday when the centos-7 node label goes away, but i was at least trying to get some idea of what the impact is going to be on openstack repos | 23:28 |
| fungi | which we can't really ascertain without merging all the rest of https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22drop-centos-7%22 and seeing what else complains | 23:29 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!