19:02:34 <jeblair> #startmeeting infra
19:02:35 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 24 19:02:34 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jeblair. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:02:36 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:02:38 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'infra'
19:02:42 <jeblair> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/InfraTeamMeeting
19:02:53 <jeblair> agenda ^ (full)
19:02:56 <jeblair> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/infra/2014/infra.2014-06-17-19.01.html
19:03:00 <jeblair> last meeting ^
19:03:16 <jeblair> #topic  Actions from last meeting
19:03:22 <ttx> o/
19:03:22 <jeblair> jeblair and clarkb if feeling better to upgrade jenkins timeout plugin starting june 18
19:03:33 <clarkb> I completed that yesterday
19:03:42 <jeblair> and then some
19:03:42 <jesusaurus> o/
19:03:53 <bcrochet> o/
19:04:04 <jeblair> zaro: so your change that depends on that should be able to proceed
19:04:08 <clarkb> zaro: can you make a point of bugging me to merge the puppet chagnes asssociated iwth that?
19:04:20 <jeblair> and clarkb is also proceeding with the trusty upgrade
19:04:24 <clarkb> we need to merge the changes that update the plugin versiosn in puppet and the job updates to use the new version of the plugin
19:04:52 <jeblair> on a related note, there are pending changes to remove the last of envinject usage, then we can yank that plugin as well
19:05:14 <jeblair> #topic  F20 jobs (ianw 24/6)
19:05:27 <jeblair> ianw: you have the floor!
19:05:35 <ianw> hi, not sure if anyone noticed, but redhatci was very unstable
19:05:56 <ianw> turns out it was all due to a RHOS issue https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112068
19:05:57 <uvirtbot> ianw: Error: Could not parse XML returned by bugzilla.redhat.com: HTTP Error 404: Not Found
19:06:20 <ianw> redhatci is also a good dog-fooding thing for us
19:06:27 <ianw> but hopefully i can turn that back on soon
19:06:46 <ianw> to the f20 jobs, the blocker is the nodepool allocation issue
19:07:06 <ianw> i've gotten https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101110/ (Track last allocations to ensure forward-progress) into shape for review
19:07:30 <clarkb> cool /me adds that to review list
19:07:50 <ianw> probably jeblair is the main person, but if there are any big issues with the approach, i'd like to know
19:07:59 <SergeyLukjanov> me too
19:08:31 <jeblair> interestingly enough, we basically haven't had any nodepool contention for the past week, until this morning
19:09:10 <jeblair> now there are a lot of nodes in the delete state; we should check on that
19:09:47 <jeblair> ianw: thanks for working on that; i think we'll probably just follow up in the review at this point
19:09:59 <jeblair> unless there are any other aspects we should discuss now
19:10:04 <jeblair> ?
19:10:05 <ianw> ok, sounds good.  that's it for me
19:10:27 <jeblair> #topic  Request for comments on the horizon split plan (rdopiera)
19:10:33 <jeblair> is this old?
19:10:38 <anteaya> I think so?
19:10:48 <anteaya> I could never find out for sure
19:10:58 <anteaya> and I don't know who has the next itme
19:11:11 <jeblair> yes, this one is old
19:11:21 <jeblair> #topic  Designate repository renames (stackforge -> openstack)
19:11:29 <Kiall> Heya :)
19:11:47 <jeblair> designate is incubated now
19:12:05 <jeblair> so we should move it to openstack/
19:12:28 <fungi> i'm pretty well open to work on a project rename batch any time between now and darmstadt
19:12:42 <Kiall> So - I had a Q or 2 related to renaming the projects.. First was scheduling the rename, and the second was what can we expect to explode (e.g. I've seen some if org == 'openstack':'s in the code..)
19:13:04 <Kiall> The second is probably more of a non-meeting time Q, but worth a quick mention :)
19:13:18 <jeblair> Kiall: when we do that, all the changes will move over, but devs will need to update their git remotes -- that's the main point of disruption
19:13:48 <jeblair> Kiall: we usually do renames on friday afternoons or weekends -- any time/date that's particularly good or bad for you?
19:14:17 <jeblair> Kiall: (it's a 15 minute downtime for all of gerrit, so that's the primary scheduling motivator)
19:14:24 <Kiall> Ideally, I'd like to be around, so the US morning on a weekend seems reasonable
19:14:48 <Kiall> (US morning so it's not 3am or something for me!)
19:15:02 <zaro> o/
19:15:28 <Kiall> Re date, the sooner the better IMO.
19:16:03 <fungi> if it needs to be before the north-american west-coasters are awake, i'm happy to take point on it (well, i'm happy to regardless)
19:16:44 <Kiall> fungi: west coast before midday works for me, I live in Ireland, but work with the Seattle office.. So I'm used to that ;)
19:16:49 <clarkb> this next weekend is hard for me
19:16:54 <clarkb> I am doing thing
19:17:02 <jeblair> i can do saturday at 1600 utc... fungi if you want to volunteer for ealier i'm not going to object ;)
19:17:28 <jeblair> actually, if clarkb isn't around anyway, i can go ahead and commit to 1500
19:17:31 <fungi> i'm fine with 1600utc if it means more of us around to fix whatever i accidentally break ;)
19:17:37 <fungi> or 1500
19:17:38 <Kiall> That sounds good to me
19:17:44 <Kiall> (either 15 or 1600 UTC)
19:17:56 <clarkb> I can do weekend after easy enough though
19:18:01 <clarkb> will nurse post 4th hangover
19:18:04 <clarkb> and be lazy >_>
19:18:04 * SergeyLukjanov can help with renaming patches and side effects q.
19:18:05 <fungi> heh
19:18:12 <jeblair> yeah, i don't really want to do this wknd after
19:18:14 <jeblair> SergeyLukjanov: cool
19:18:31 <jeblair> #agreed rename designate (and bash8) saturday 1500 UTC
19:18:42 <jeblair> i'll send an announcement
19:18:43 <Kiall> Great - Thanks guys :)
19:18:50 <clarkb> wfm
19:18:51 <jeblair> Kiall: np, thank you!
19:18:53 <fungi> looked like we also had murano projects to move to the attic?
19:18:54 <SergeyLukjanov> ok
19:19:02 <SergeyLukjanov> fungi, yup
19:19:06 <fungi> though i guess we could wait until we get to those on the agenda
19:19:10 <SergeyLukjanov> I think ruhe could talk about it
19:19:28 <ruhe> o/
19:19:36 <jeblair> #topic  Deprecate deprecated Murano projects (move to attic or completely remove?) [ruhe]
19:19:41 <jeblair> since we're here...
19:19:45 <SergeyLukjanov> heh, agenda wiki page is still loading for me :(
19:19:46 <anteaya> yup
19:19:58 <ruhe> jeblair: thanks
19:19:59 <ruhe> several murano repositories were deprecated after we merged functionality into stackforge/murano. they have nothing but a readme file with a deprecation notice.
19:20:07 <fungi> and the answer is... move to attic since we don't delete projects ;)
19:20:07 <ruhe> i see two options: 1) remove them completely (and preserve history somewhere in github), 2) move them to attic, but afaik current attic is only for projects from openstack group (not for stackforge projects)
19:20:33 <ruhe> fungi: is attic for all projects, or just those from openstack group?
19:20:39 <fungi> oh, i see. this comes back to the need for a stackforge-attic
19:20:41 <SergeyLukjanov> we could make a stackforge-attic too IMO
19:20:50 <jeblair> or 3) just set them to read-only and leave in stackforge
19:21:00 <SergeyLukjanov> we have some dead projects in stackforge
19:21:18 <ruhe> jeblair: sometimes they confuse newcomers, that's why we wanted to get rid of them
19:21:20 <jeblair> the main reason to have an openstack attic is so that when people look at the "openstack" org in github, they only see real live openstack projects...
19:21:21 <fungi> that also seems like a fine option (i was in favor of doing that for openstack deprecated projects too, fwiw)
19:21:28 <SergeyLukjanov> jeblair, it's an option too, but it could be a bit frustrating for newcomers
19:21:57 <jeblair> i'm not sure the same thing is true for stackforge?  it seems like ruhe and SergeyLukjanov think so :)
19:22:22 <fungi> well, if the project had a final commit which removed all files except for a readme with a deprecation "we have moved" notice, i don't think that should be too frustrating for newcomers
19:22:22 <jeblair> anyone else with opinions?
19:22:27 <anteaya> I have no opinion, the only stackforge project I have interacted with is gertty
19:22:31 <SergeyLukjanov> jeblair, I see stackforge like our one more our org
19:22:40 <SergeyLukjanov> and IMO it's good to keep it clean
19:23:10 <SergeyLukjanov> jeblair, but I'm agreed that it's not so important as keeping clean github.com/openstack
19:23:14 <anteaya> so I don't know how stackforge contributors think
19:23:42 <ruhe> there is also MRaaS, which seems to be dead. and might confuse people about MRaaS vs Sahara
19:24:25 <jeblair> okay, i won't try to argue that we keep it "dirty", so i guess we can move them to the attic
19:24:28 <jeblair> the stackforge-attic
19:24:50 <jeblair> which i just made on github
19:24:57 <SergeyLukjanov> :)
19:25:06 <jeblair> ruhe: are those projects ready to move now?
19:25:11 <ruhe> jeblair: yes
19:25:29 <jeblair> okay, so we can move them on saturday then with the other renames
19:25:34 <fungi> sounds good
19:25:38 <SergeyLukjanov> jeblair, would we like to collect list of completely dead projects on stackforge?
19:25:45 <SergeyLukjanov> like mraas
19:25:57 <clarkb> SergeyLukjanov: that is probably not a bad idea
19:26:00 <fungi> SergeyLukjanov: that might be hard to identify without input from their core review teams
19:26:08 <clarkb> if for no other reason to get an idea of how prevalent it is
19:26:08 <fungi> but is possibly worth pursuing
19:26:11 <Kiall> fungi: maybe 6 months no commits or something?
19:26:17 <Kiall> (or pick a number...)
19:26:21 <ruhe> jeblair: cool. i can create needed patches (in cases if they're needed) using SergeyLukjanov's help, since i have him in the same room :)
19:26:41 <fungi> Kiall: i don't want to rule out the possibility that a project can be "finished" and not have any reported bugs/fixes or new features needed
19:26:50 <jeblair> Kiall: we'll exclude any projects that don't get commits from 6 months and have Donald Knuth as a core reviewer. ;)
19:27:00 <fungi> hah
19:27:04 <SergeyLukjanov> :)
19:27:08 <Kiall> lol
19:27:24 <Kiall> Well, 6 months might be a list, rather than shortlist :)
19:27:50 <jeblair> #topic  What server for devstack.org documentation? (anteaya)
19:27:50 <fungi> 6 months of inactivity might make for a good list of core review teams to follow up with at least
19:27:56 <anteaya> hi
19:28:02 <jeblair> fungi: ++
19:28:09 <anteaya> dtroyer has the docs in devstack now
19:28:22 <anteaya> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/101668/
19:28:35 <jeblair> oh neat
19:28:37 <anteaya> merged yesterday
19:28:48 <anteaya> so now we just need a job to publish them somewhere
19:28:52 <SergeyLukjanov> I'll review the list of stackforge projects to find persons who we'd like to contact about removing repos from stackforge
19:29:00 <anteaya> unfortunately our meeting is a hard time for dtroyer to make
19:29:13 <anteaya> so we need something like puppet to run build_docs
19:29:14 <jeblair> anteaya: has the domain been moved yet?
19:29:19 <anteaya> and publish
19:29:30 <anteaya> dtroyer says he wants the server first
19:29:38 <anteaya> and I know you want the domain name first
19:29:41 <jeblair> er
19:29:46 <anteaya> and I have seen no action on the domain name
19:29:47 <jeblair> i think the domain should be _transferred_ first
19:29:50 <anteaya> so I don't know what to do
19:29:53 <anteaya> yeah, I know that
19:29:57 <jeblair> continuing to point to gh-pages
19:30:00 <anteaya> ahd dean can't come to infra meetings
19:30:11 <anteaya> so I do't know what to do next
19:30:17 <jeblair> then we can publish the docs, then point the domain at the new location
19:30:21 <anteaya> right
19:30:27 <anteaya> _I_ know that
19:30:40 <anteaya> but I can't seem to convince dtroyer
19:30:50 <anteaya> so what to do next?
19:31:10 <jeblair> because, honestly, that's the hard part of this -- that's the part that people have said they wanted to do for like a year, but nothings happening
19:31:15 <anteaya> right
19:31:23 <anteaya> I have an email out, I have seen no action
19:31:30 <anteaya> I talked to dtroyer
19:31:38 <anteaya> he wants the server first
19:31:46 <jeblair> it's not his domain name
19:31:50 <anteaya> he says don't worry about the domain name
19:31:53 <jeblair> it's jesse andrews
19:31:55 <anteaya> true, it isn't
19:31:58 <anteaya> correct
19:32:22 <anteaya> jeblair: can you talk to dtroyer?
19:32:33 <jeblair> anteaya: sure?
19:32:36 <anteaya> I have asked him to come to infra meetings, he can't come
19:32:38 <anteaya> thanks
19:32:45 <fungi> is the plan a rackspace cloudsites server for now? if so, i think we may not be able to add one for devstack.org until the domain is hosted on rackspace's nameservers? (unless we pick some other name and set up an alias later)
19:33:18 <jeblair> fungi: i'm not sure it's even worth making a detailed plan until the domain is transferred, but yeah, we could do cloud sites, or something on static.o.o
19:33:18 <anteaya> right now we just need a server with apache to server static html files
19:33:27 <anteaya> he didn't mention needing cloudsites
19:33:41 <fungi> otherwise "server first" is a little irrelevant, since it would be a different "server"
19:33:54 <anteaya> mostly he wants a script to run the build_docs job
19:34:00 <anteaya> which I do think puppet can fire
19:34:04 <jeblair> i think our options are: transfer ownership of the domain, then move the site.  or deprecate the domain and host the docs at docs.o.o/devstack
19:34:15 <jeblair> anteaya: jenkins will run it
19:34:18 <annegent_> o/
19:34:20 <anteaya> great
19:34:26 <fungi> i'm more in favor of the latter anyway (and have devstack.org just serve as a redirect)
19:34:36 <annegent_> I'd rather not increase the scope of docs further all the time
19:34:38 <jeblair> fungi: yeah, that still needs to be foundation owned though
19:34:50 <fungi> not necessarily docs.o.o/devstack specifically, but somewhere on an existing site
19:34:56 <clarkb> annegent_: I don't think it is a scope incrase.
19:35:06 <clarkb> annegent_: it would just host the docs for that project like we host docs for all other projects
19:35:13 <reed> i have asked Jesse and Soo multiple times, in real life, too... I will ask more
19:35:20 <reed> s/more/again
19:35:30 <jeblair> anteaya: annegent_ sorry, i meant http://docs.openstack.org/developer/devstack
19:35:46 <jeblair> annegent_: so yeah, not intending to increase scope
19:35:47 <annegent_> clarkb: jeblair: I guess I'm ok with /developer/devstack
19:35:52 <fungi> annegent_: something similar to the developer reference content we currently publish for the python clients, presumably
19:35:52 <anteaya> reed: dtroyer said he had asked jesse and jesse had said yes
19:36:04 <anteaya> reed: I don't get the feeling there needs to be more asking
19:36:16 <clarkb> fungi: ya
19:36:22 <anteaya> just the domain transfer needs to happen
19:36:30 <reed> anteaya, when did dtroyer ask last time?
19:36:31 <lsell> i can chime in on the domain transfer -- jesse said yes, but we still need credentials and he's gone quiet
19:36:50 <lsell> it's quick to do, but he's been unresponsive for about a month now
19:36:57 <anteaya> reed: couple weeks before summit
19:37:05 <anteaya> reed: permissions are in place afaik
19:37:08 <reed> exactly, and in order to transfer the domain you need to be quick and responsive at the right time
19:37:18 <jeblair> lsell: weird :( thanks
19:37:24 <anteaya> reed: looks like lsell is on it
19:37:33 <reed> anteaya, I and her both are
19:37:39 <anteaya> okay
19:37:40 <lsell> we just need the auth code, stefano has sent him about five emails
19:37:49 <anteaya> well keep us informed on your progress
19:37:50 <lsell> but yes, any help appreciated
19:38:01 <anteaya> lsell: ah, I didn't know that
19:38:16 <anteaya> hmmmm, anyone live close to him? perhaps he needs another beer?
19:38:36 <anteaya> anyway that is all from me
19:38:39 <anteaya> and ttx has two items
19:38:41 <jeblair> thanks
19:38:47 <ttx> i do!
19:38:48 <jeblair> #topic  Support for proposed/* pre-release branches instead of milestone-proposed [ttx]
19:39:24 <ttx> so I looked up my old patch for this, and I'm not even sure it's needed
19:39:40 <ttx> Current plan is to use proposed/juno pre-release
19:40:02 <ttx> that would generate nova-proposed-juno.tar.gz, which doesn't look any weirder than milestone-proposed.tar.gz
19:40:34 <ttx> so unless you have process adherence to milestone-proposed.tar.gz, I'm not sure we need to rename tarballs to match old name
19:40:44 <jeblair> ttx: agreed, the new name should be fine
19:41:01 <ttx> there will be leftovers tarballs, but we can leave with that
19:41:14 <ttx> so i'm not sure where to look for other needed changes
19:41:18 <fungi> and probably the biggest to-do items from infra on this are all-projects and individual acl updates, changes to logic in zuul's layout and devstack-gate/grenade setup...
19:41:35 <jeblair> we could probably delete those milestone-proposed tarballs as a special case
19:41:51 <ttx> I suspect somewhere deep in there is the magic that makes stable/* work together with stable/* when available
19:41:52 <anteaya> how would the acl files change? anything with milestone would be pre-release?
19:41:54 <jeblair> since they are potentially confusing (and would have been overwritten if we did not change schemes)
19:42:09 <nibalizer> openstack:
19:42:12 <nibalizer> erp
19:42:13 <ttx> and we need to teach that to look for proposed/* just in case stable/* doesn't exist
19:42:25 <jeblair> ttx: it's actually magical enough that i don't think it needs updating
19:42:28 <fungi> anteaya: right now we have a lot of acl references to refs/heads/milestone-proposed which would probably need to be switched to refs/heads/proposed/*
19:42:35 <anteaya> ah
19:42:41 <anteaya> that makes sense
19:42:53 <anteaya> then the grand renaming of the gerrit groups
19:42:55 <ttx> fungi: yep, that's the only change I found so far
19:42:57 <anteaya> once folks catch on
19:43:18 <ttx> jeblair: that would truly be magic. I don't believe it.
19:43:22 <fungi> i'm not so picky that i care about .*-milestone groups being renamed
19:43:46 <fungi> but perhaps others disagree
19:44:03 <anteaya> kk
19:44:06 <anteaya> good
19:44:17 <jeblair> we do still have milestones, after all :)
19:44:21 <ttx> jeblair: also was wondering how we could test that, do you have a test project with pre-release / release jobs enabled ?
19:45:04 <ttx> that said, worst case scenario we'll have the same issues as with milestone-proposed
19:45:41 <jeblair> ttx: no, but we could probably use the sandbox repo; though i'm inclined to say let's just try to have people on-deck to re-run jobs if there are problems the first time we do this
19:45:49 <ttx> #info needs to switch ACLs from refs/heads/milestone-proposed to refs/heads/proposed/*
19:46:16 <clarkb> ++ on deck sounds good
19:46:38 <ttx> OK I'll update the release scripts so that they use proposed/* on pre-release
19:46:51 <jeblair> ttx: anything else on this topic?
19:47:05 <ttx> jeblair: nope, looks simpler than I thought
19:47:37 <fungi> i can probably wrap the milestone-proposed to proposed/* acl changes into my normalization script series just so we catch any stragger open reviews ion a subsequent pass
19:47:47 <jeblair> #topic  Is merge_tags.sh broken ? [ttx]
19:47:50 <fungi> s/stragger/straggler/
19:47:50 <ttx> jeblair: you'll have to explain to me the magic that will make us degrade to using proposed/* in testing, though
19:48:11 <ttx> so the second part of my patch was to teach proposed/* to merge_tags.sh
19:48:23 <ttx> but looking into it I realized that it must fail most of the time
19:48:43 <ttx> in particular it fails on stable/* tags
19:48:51 <ttx> but silently (reports SUCCESS)
19:49:04 <ttx> it also failed on all 2014.1 tags
19:49:08 <fungi> ttx: it was fixed prior to https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/swift-merge-release-tags/3/console
19:49:11 <ttx> with errors around CLA
19:49:29 <ttx> fungi: OK, couldn't find reference to fix
19:49:30 <clarkb> ya the CLA thing should be sorted out
19:49:41 <clarkb> ttx: it was fixed int he context of translation proposals iirc
19:49:41 <ttx> ok, so it should work on release
19:50:02 * fungi checks for a more recent example as proof
19:50:14 <ttx> Does it make sense to fix it for stable/* ?
19:50:23 <ttx> It's a release job, not a pre-release job, right
19:50:55 <clarkb> yes should be a release job
19:51:03 <jeblair> confirmed
19:51:10 <ttx> Ok, so I'll teach it proposed/*
19:51:18 <fungi> here's a fun silent failure...
19:51:20 <ttx> does it make sense to merge tags on stable releases ?
19:51:21 <fungi> #link https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/cinder-merge-release-tags/2/console
19:51:28 <ttx> fungi: yeah right :)
19:51:38 <fungi> "error: malformed object name origin/milestone-proposed"
19:51:39 <ttx> stable releases are tagged on stable/foo
19:51:54 <ttx> fungi: it's when milestone-proposed doesn't exist anymore
19:52:10 <ttx> so I don't think there is anything that should be merged back
19:53:07 <ttx> since I'm not 100% sure I got why we were doing merge_tags.sh in the first place, I figured I should ask before I "fix" it there
19:53:31 <clarkb> ttx: the reason merge tags exists is so that the pbr versions works when you go to the next version
19:53:42 <clarkb> since it is git tag based you have ot make sure the tags end up in your history
19:53:58 <fungi> in the history of your current branch, specifically
19:54:04 <ttx> clarkb: so we shouldn't merge tags back to master for stable/foo release tags, right ?
19:54:49 <jeblair> ttx: that sounds reasonable to me
19:54:53 <ttx> good thing it fails, after all.
19:54:54 <clarkb> ttx: you should for the first stable release but probably not for subsequent ones
19:54:57 <fungi> presumably not, no. also pbr versioning is different for the projects which have a stable branch model, such that the old tag names are irrelevant anyway, right?
19:55:22 <ttx> clarkb: so we should merge tags back from proposed/foo to master, but not from stable/foo
19:55:33 <jeblair> ttx: we may want to follow up with mordred on this
19:55:35 <clarkb> ttx: that sounds right
19:55:39 <fungi> because we configure the package to have metadata about the next version being worked toward, and pbr uses that to determine what to set the current version to
19:55:40 <clarkb> but we should get mordred's input
19:55:44 <ttx> ok, i'll fix merge_tags.sh and make sure mordred reviews it
19:56:06 <ttx> that's all I had -- thanks for making the time
19:56:14 <jeblair> ttx: cool, thanks
19:56:17 <jeblair> #topic  Open discussion
19:56:24 <jeblair> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Qa_Infra_Meetup_2014
19:56:34 <jeblair> there's a qa/infra joint meetup/sprinty thing happening in a few weeks
19:56:43 <clarkb> I have a couple changes up to ease the pain of the trusty transition for a couple projects
19:56:43 <fungi> and swift is a hybrid between library serial release model and server stable branching, so it makes use of the pbr tag-based postversioning i assume
19:56:43 <jeblair> you should come unless you're having a family reunion
19:56:51 <clarkb> getting quick review on that would be great and make our users happy :)
19:57:00 <clarkb> I will be there :)
19:57:02 <fungi> is most everyone staying at the maritim?
19:57:10 <fungi> i need to go ahead and book my lodging this week
19:57:11 <anteaya> clarkb: topic name for patch series?
19:57:18 <anteaya> I
19:57:25 <anteaya> m staying in frankfurt
19:57:27 <clarkb> anteaya: there is no patch series because they are independent. I will post links in -infra
19:57:30 <anteaya> but I think I am the only one
19:57:34 <clarkb> I am staying at maritim in darmstadt
19:57:39 <anteaya> clarkb: cool or an etherpad
19:57:39 <mrodden> did anyone need anything else from me re: the bash8 rename?
19:57:47 <mrodden> i saw it will be done on sat.
19:57:48 <jeblair> anteaya: i suspect mordred will -- starwood and all
19:57:58 <anteaya> jeblair: he is leaning darmstadt
19:58:06 <notmyname> fungi: FWIW, it was recently (circa atlanta summit) pointed out that swift's versioning via pbr isn't actually what anyone wants. we'll be updating it to be more like other server projects during juno (still semver, but not using the pbr+tags like client libs)
19:58:09 <fungi> mrodden: yeah, you'll want to be around if possible to make sure your stuff is working and approve the .gitreview update patch for it
19:58:12 <anteaya> so I went ahead and booked without hearing from him
19:58:20 <jeblair> anteaya: now i'm just confused! :)
19:58:29 <fungi> notmyname: oh, right, i remember being in that session now ;)
19:58:29 <anteaya> jeblair: yeah, me too
19:59:03 <mrodden> fungi: be around on sat.?
19:59:09 <anteaya> 1500 utc
19:59:11 <jeblair> oh, i added some potential sprint topics to the wiki page; feel free to add more
19:59:28 <clarkb> cool /me checks if zuul is on there :)
19:59:35 <fungi> mrodden: or just be ready to deal with it on monday when you get around to it, assuming it's a low-volume sort of project
19:59:48 <anteaya> I might have to add infra-manual if the first commit doesn't merge before then
19:59:58 <jeblair> anteaya: nicely done!
20:00:02 <anteaya> ha ha ha
20:00:12 <mrodden> fungi: np i can be around on sat. at 1500 UTC i think, just wanted to clarify
20:00:19 <anteaya> oh I think we are done
20:00:40 <jeblair> thanks everyone!
20:00:43 <jeblair> #endmeeting