14:00:06 <abhishekk> #startmeeting glance
14:00:07 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Apr  1 14:00:06 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is abhishekk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:08 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:10 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'glance'
14:00:12 <abhishekk> #topic roll call
14:00:28 <abhishekk> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda
14:00:29 <Steap> o/
14:00:30 <abhishekk> o/
14:00:31 <dansmith> o/
14:00:49 <abhishekk> lets wait couple of minutes for others to join
14:01:12 <abhishekk> Short agenda today as well
14:01:14 <jokke> o/
14:02:16 <abhishekk> cool, rosmaita might join soon, lets start
14:02:21 <rosmaita> o/
14:02:28 <abhishekk> :D
14:02:51 <abhishekk> #topic Updates
14:02:54 <abhishekk> Xena PTG is almost 3 weeks away
14:03:05 <abhishekk> #link  https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/xena-ptg-glance-planning
14:03:23 <abhishekk> Please add your name to the list of attendants if you are planning to attend the same
14:03:38 <abhishekk> also  add the topics of your interest for the discussion
14:04:22 <abhishekk> After next weeks meeting I am going to finalize the topics and allot day/time for discussion
14:04:36 <abhishekk> moving ahead
14:04:38 <abhishekk> #topic release/periodic jobs update
14:04:48 <abhishekk> We are good on release front
14:05:13 <abhishekk> Periodic job, one failure in week related to oslo-tips job, will have a look at that after the meeting
14:05:24 <abhishekk> everything else is green
14:05:45 <abhishekk> Moving ahead
14:05:51 <abhishekk> #topic Glance bug tracking
14:06:01 <abhishekk> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/glance-bug-tracker
14:06:19 <abhishekk> I have added some bugs to above tracker which are good to close as won't fix
14:06:31 <dansmith> I'd also like to call attention to this: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/783668
14:06:44 <abhishekk> as well as some of the bugs which has patches submitted and need reviews
14:07:12 <abhishekk> yep, kindly review the above patch as well
14:07:13 <dansmith> we're still hitting that infrequently in zuul, so it'd be good to get that in so we can start looking for that log message
14:08:20 <abhishekk> I will be checking store and client bugs as well (mostly early next week)
14:09:08 <abhishekk> Moving to last topic in the list
14:09:14 <abhishekk> #topic Guidelines for reviewers
14:09:41 <abhishekk> I have tried to put something together as a guidelines for reviewers (mostly for us)
14:09:51 <abhishekk> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/783893
14:10:03 <abhishekk> Would like to have your opinion/suggestions for the same
14:11:05 <abhishekk> If you have any questions/concerns/suggestions we can discuss on the review itself
14:11:18 <abhishekk> that's all for today from me
14:11:26 <abhishekk> moving to Open discussion
14:11:29 <abhishekk> #topic Open discussion
14:12:01 * abhishekk we get here really fast
14:12:19 <rosmaita> i'll take a look at the review guidelines
14:12:32 <jokke> I have nothing atm. Will have a look of that as well
14:12:34 <Steap> Can we Ninja close https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-glanceclient/+bug/1844298 ? As Brian said, this is no longer relevant
14:12:35 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1844298 in Glance Client "python-glanceclient doesn't implement find() method" [Undecided,New]
14:12:55 <abhishekk> Just for the update, tomorrow will be holiday in most of the countries
14:13:11 <Steap> Monday may also be a holiday in a lot of countries
14:13:31 <jokke> Oh yeah, I'll be back Tue tomorrow and Mon off here
14:13:38 <abhishekk> ack
14:13:50 <abhishekk> jokke, cool, longest weekend :D
14:14:04 <abhishekk> Steap, will have a look at the bug
14:14:49 <abhishekk> Steap, good to close that bug
14:14:52 <rosmaita> i guess i should have just closed that bug as invalid or irrelevant or something
14:15:21 <Steap> the life of that bug is amazing
14:15:25 <Steap> it was valid
14:15:28 <abhishekk> I just remembered that we have a patch on master to drop lower constraints job
14:15:29 <Steap> then we waited 6 months
14:15:36 <Steap> it became invalid
14:15:39 <Steap> and then we waited 6 months to close it :D
14:15:44 <abhishekk> :P
14:15:44 <rosmaita> bugfix by procrastination!
14:15:54 <abhishekk> haha
14:15:56 <Steap> THe OSC devs may start to think we don't like their project
14:16:24 <abhishekk> is there any OSC dev around, I haven't seen for long
14:16:31 <jokke> I don't know about the rest of ye, but I don't :P And it's nothing personal against them, just the project
14:17:22 <abhishekk> back to lower constraints job, so are we intending to keep those for master branch ?
14:17:40 <dansmith> I don't think that most projects are expecting to keep the l-c jobs on  master,
14:17:53 <dansmith> because as identified, breaking or not, they don't provide anything useful
14:18:13 <dansmith> so by leaving them we're just doing extra CI work until they break, and then we'll likely remove them so.. not much point
14:18:24 <abhishekk> that is what concluded in last TC meeting I guess
14:18:52 <jokke> Well they do. They keep the lower boundary of our requirements in check. Which nothing else is testing
14:20:01 <abhishekk> Ok, I will check the usefulness of it and decide accordingly
14:20:32 <abhishekk> but if we intend to keep it then we need to remember to drop it from stable branch as soon as we hit the release
14:20:55 <dansmith> they test that our own internal stuff runs with some arbitrary set of pins
14:21:15 <dansmith> they don't test that our service actually works with that, or that it actually works with all the other services at that boundary, especially if the others are dropping it
14:21:30 <rosmaita> a related question is how to maintain the minima in the requirements file
14:21:34 <dansmith> I'm not sure what the point of dropping it on stable is and not master
14:22:03 <rosmaita> well, it's sort of a sanity check
14:22:13 <rosmaita> which i think is jokke's point
14:22:21 <abhishekk> kind of
14:23:47 <dansmith> it's a sanity check that a small fraction of our least-relevant tests run in isolation with those packages installed
14:24:04 <dansmith> most of those tests don't even use those libraries since they're largely mock-type tests
14:24:04 <jokke> mhm, if we don't even test that the lower boundaries of our requirements will install together, we just should remove those as well and keep requirements as dependency + blacklist
14:24:18 <dansmith> jokke: yeah I think that's the point
14:24:32 <dansmith> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/782768/2/lower-constraints.txt
14:25:14 <jokke> I'm happy that I'm not responsible for packaging for any distro if we go there ;)
14:25:45 <dansmith> our packaging people have said they don't care about or even look at this right?
14:26:05 <abhishekk> yep, i think so
14:26:35 <jokke> IIRC zigo was quite heavily against dropping the indication what the expected bottom is
14:26:52 <dansmith> yes, the one voice that caused this whole thing to be drawn out,
14:26:57 <dansmith> despite nobody else caring
14:27:13 <dansmith> and even still, I don't think that it actually feeds anything in debian, it's just that he thinks it's nice to see
14:27:40 <dansmith> we dropped the file from stable here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/782769
14:27:57 <dansmith> so if we don't merge the master thing, the lower-constraints.txt is going to come back to life when X becomes stable/X
14:28:00 <dansmith> that makes no sense
14:29:26 <abhishekk> so either like other projects we get rid of it on master or we should have bot job to remove it as soon as we cut a stable branch
14:29:43 <abhishekk> I am inclining towards former point
14:29:50 <dansmith> since no distros consume master, that makes it pretty useless :)
14:30:08 <abhishekk> point
14:30:09 <dansmith> meaning, having l-c on master, and then deleting it for all stable branches
14:31:09 <jokke> well after release, but sure. how about removing unit & functional tests too as no-one deploys them either ;P
14:31:54 <abhishekk> those are for developers to make sure the changes they made are not breaking and working as per expected
14:32:15 <dansmith> and the functional tests _do_ run the regular requirements
14:32:23 <jokke> But yeah, my whole point is we should remove the low boundaries from requirements.txt too
14:32:39 <dansmith> dropping l-c testing on stable also means that if we were to backport something that required something higher than the lower limit, we wouldn't even know it was broken
14:32:49 <jokke> if we don't test that they even install together
14:34:44 <abhishekk> Ok, I guess we should let other reviewers express their thoughts on review for the same
14:35:13 <abhishekk> I have nothing else for today
14:35:34 <abhishekk> Steap, rosmaita anything else ?
14:36:32 <abhishekk> I take that as no
14:36:58 <abhishekk> wishing Happy Easter in advance to all those who are celebrating
14:37:13 <jokke> have a good one everyone o/
14:37:15 <abhishekk> Have nice weekend
14:37:21 <abhishekk> Thank you all
14:38:00 <abhishekk> #endmeeting