15:00:05 #startmeeting releaseteam 15:00:06 Meeting started Fri Jun 23 15:00:05 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:07 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:09 The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' 15:00:11 Ping list: dhellmann, dims, fungi, tonyb, stevemar, lbragstad 15:00:20 Agenda at: 15:00:25 o/ 15:00:26 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/pike-relmgt-tracking 15:00:41 Scroll down to R-10 15:00:54 Waiting for more people to join 15:01:06 know fungi and dims are probably not around 15:01:16 Same for tonyb given the hour in Australia 15:01:38 probably a pretty thin group this week then 15:01:54 yes, short agenda too 15:02:05 I can probably address the first one 15:02:13 #topic Mistral release model change 15:02:36 TL;DR: was that mistral is cycle-with-milestones and yet depended upon, due to an incomplete mistral-lib 15:02:56 which creates issues as you can't add betas or RCs in requirements.txt 15:03:22 Plan A was to finish the work on mistral-lib, but that's a lot of work 15:03:34 Plan B was to switch mistral to cycle-with-intermediary 15:03:41 * ttx reads the latest development in the thread 15:04:17 Plan B had the lead but Dougal posted this morning that Plan A is probably still diable 15:04:20 doiable 15:04:22 doable 15:04:53 o/ 15:05:16 #info So we'll be trying Plan A, see how that goes in a few weeks, and switch back to plan B in case of failure to deliver 15:05:26 ++ 15:05:31 * ttx adds note in the plan to remember to check for that 15:06:04 any question/comment on that ? 15:06:30 I'll take that as no 15:06:32 #topic oslo.log stable/mitaka release call 15:06:52 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/476016/ 15:07:18 Should we process that? If yes, should we do it now on a Friday ? 15:07:34 are we running any mitaka branch tests? 15:07:45 usually the reason we don't want to do things on friday is to avoid breaking ourselves 15:07:58 I think it likely won't land in requirements 15:08:11 if I read tonyb's comment correctly 15:08:18 true. I think we should do it. I can see waiting for Monday. 15:08:40 unless we've already declared the branches eol, and just haven't had time to delete them? 15:08:53 I admit I lost track of that thread 15:09:01 i think ^ that's the case 15:09:12 Yes it's declared eol, hence my hesitation 15:09:15 ah 15:09:25 It's just not destroyed yet for various reasons 15:09:43 so on one hand I'm willing to oblige gcb, but on the other that sounds a bit late 15:10:00 yeah, I wonder if there was a request for this or if he was just doing housekeeping? 15:10:02 We'll likely won't even know if we didn't break anything there 15:10:21 eh, that sounded weird, let me tryagain 15:10:34 We'll likely not even know if we broke something there 15:10:59 seems safe enough to ask gcb for details and wait to decide, but I agree without any testing and with the branch eol, it also makes sense to say no 15:11:53 dhellmann: I feel like he was asked for details of why he wants it already 15:12:22 Fixes a couple of bugs, and I suspect some people will use that even if Mitaka is EOL 15:12:42 My concern is more that (1) the branch is EOL and (2) that release won't see integration testing 15:13:10 so it's a non-tested release, I prefer that it's done by users directly 15:14:55 sure, that makes sense 15:15:16 I'll comment, and we can make the call Monday 15:15:25 sounds good 15:16:52 ok don,e 15:16:56 #topic Open discussion 15:17:00 Anything else ? 15:17:09 * lbragstad shakes head 15:17:22 nothing pressing from me 15:17:25 ok then, let's get back to our Fridays 15:17:28 #endmeeting