15:01:37 #startmeeting releaseteam 15:01:38 Meeting started Fri Aug 11 15:01:37 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:01:41 The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' 15:01:57 Agenda @ https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/pike-relmgt-tracking (scroll down to R-3 week) 15:02:59 #topic Missing RC1 15:03:35 We have a number of cycle-with-milestones deliverables that are still missing RC1 / stable/pike branching 15:03:41 designate (+ designate-dashboard) 15:03:45 heat 15:03:47 manila 15:03:51 searchlight (+ searchlight-ui) 15:04:07 unclear ETA for them 15:04:33 o/ 15:04:43 so I propose we don't wait for them before we do the devstack / requirements branching 15:04:53 ++ ttx 15:04:55 and grenade 15:05:29 If they still haven't done anything next week we'll probably just cut one for them 15:05:55 #topic Standing Library freeze exception requests 15:06:04 We have os-win @ https://review.openstack.org/492483 15:06:34 * dhellmann slinks in late 15:06:47 includes a regression fix that affects certain environments (clustered Windows / Hyper-V Server 2016 nodes) - without it, VMs cannot be spawned in such environments. 15:07:52 ttx : "Clustering Hyper-V" so fail on some environments 15:08:22 I think that would not warrant a global-req bump 15:08:32 but that would still trigger an uc bump 15:08:39 y, hold the line on just uc bump 15:09:18 ++ 15:09:23 well he did not ask for a req bump so... 15:09:26 should we do that before the requirements branch? 15:09:29 shall we approve this before branching ? 15:09:30 ttx: manila rc1 expected in about 90 minutes 15:09:43 bswartz: thanks! 15:09:55 dhellmann: I would say yes 15:10:03 ttx : no need 15:10:23 dhellmann: the only thing that bothers me a bit is the .Y bump 15:10:31 why? 15:10:55 in the middle of a lib freeze it feels like only .Z bumps shall be allowed 15:11:01 ah 15:11:12 * ttx looks at what warrants the .Y bump 15:11:14 ttx : dhellmann : they can backport just that specific review and ask for 2.1.1 and we can deal with that next week 15:11:25 should we ask them to branch and backport the critical fix? 15:11:27 I would go with smallest change 15:11:30 that seems like it's going to take a while 15:11:31 they already cut stable/pike from 2.1.0 15:11:36 oh, did they? 15:11:41 os-win? 15:11:48 it was cut automatically. :) 15:11:50 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/492483/1/deliverables/pike/os-win.yaml 15:11:51 claudiub: yes 15:12:05 oh, yeah, if there's a pike branch that fix can be backported to that 15:12:09 and this should be a queens release 15:12:14 the fix is backported to pike already 15:12:19 aw 15:12:24 you backported features, too 15:12:29 hmm, I think the stable/pike branch got a couple of featury things like [Trivial] Add method checking if a disk is claimed by MPIO 15:12:40 which is why it bumped to 2.2.0 15:13:31 It's difficult to hold the line with so many projects not following stable policy, but that's a tangential discussion 15:14:16 yes, stable/pike was pretty busy over the last 14 days 15:14:41 claudiub : what percentage of installs are the "clustered" variety? 15:15:21 Look all like clean backports though 15:15:51 dims: most of our customers use Hyper-V clusters actually 15:15:53 that patch is not really a feature. there's an issue regarding MPIO, a race condition, and it is required by: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/490894/ 15:15:58 I guess that's limited risk since that code is only loaded on the platform the late version is supposedly fixing 15:16:13 which should be backported to pike as well, after it merges on master. 15:16:55 dhellmann: given the nature of the lib I'm willing to give it a free pass 15:17:28 ttx : as long as it does not affect g-r 15:17:32 ok, I guess I can go along with that 15:17:33 right 15:17:59 Let's approve while nobody else is looking 15:18:07 kk 15:18:09 * claudiub looks away 15:18:10 * fungi saw that ;) 15:18:12 claudiub: next time try to be more conservative on what you backport :) 15:18:37 ttx: sure. :) 15:18:41 dhellmann: remove your -1 ? 15:18:43 lol fungi 15:18:44 * smcginnis finally got to 10000 ft 15:19:15 The new PTl is here, just pretend nothing happened 15:19:22 hehehe 15:19:23 ttx: approved 15:19:43 ok, next topic 15:19:47 oh, should we get dims and smcginnis to pile on to give us cover? :-) 15:19:48 smcginnis : there's NOTHING under the carpet 15:19:55 #topic When to do the branching work ? 15:20:07 Shall we start just after this meeting, despite it being Friday ? 15:20:18 yes ttx 15:20:21 do you all have a couple of hours to kill ? 15:20:29 i am up for it 15:20:32 yes, I have time to help 15:20:38 I shall be able to spend next 90min before life calls 15:20:47 and we'll lose sdague if we don't do it today (he's on vacation next week) 15:20:51 ok, let's close meetign fast then 15:20:54 ++ 15:21:00 EVERYONE is on vacation enxt week 15:21:11 even me! 15:21:12 oh boy 15:21:15 #topic Open discussion 15:21:16 the european influence is rubbing off 15:21:23 So nobody has been updating the tracking page 15:21:35 Which is why I feel it's useless at this stage 15:21:43 Sounds good to me. 15:21:45 I've been using https://releases.openstack.org/pike/index.html 15:21:53 even if due to post jobs it trails a bit 15:21:58 which tracking page, the etherpad? 15:22:08 If I need accurate status I've been grepping the releases repo 15:22:11 Sorry, appears to be a lot of lag. :) 15:22:16 ttx : y i never even opened it 15:22:18 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F2hFo6cf1OvIyoC-ifRpVgrkFiYMzbNFTr2MsAYLpqs/edit#gid=223155692 15:22:20 Review tasks for next week 15:22:27 err ignore that last line caught in paste 15:22:41 the pike-relmgt-tracking pad is what i assumed anyway 15:22:42 ttx: the list-deliverables command also has some useful query args 15:22:45 dhellmann: right 15:22:48 --missing-stable-branch etc 15:22:56 that's what I use, because I can git pull and get the latest info 15:22:57 So keeping the gdoc up to date is a bit painful and error-prone 15:23:04 Let's ignore it 15:23:16 We can use the tracking page to list open issues when fire will start spreading 15:23:25 (the etherpad one) 15:23:29 I know, confusing 15:23:30 ++ 15:23:36 ++ 15:23:47 OK. Last topic: next week's tasks 15:23:51 agree 15:23:58 Quick review of what's listed on R-2 15:24:01 we also have ethercalc.openstack.org now if you want to do spreadsheets and would rather avoid the goog 15:24:20 fungi: Thanks, good point. 15:25:29 Looks like most of thye tasks are R-1 tasks 15:26:30 so I moved them 15:26:45 I think the only timely tasks is the release notes check 15:27:01 the rest is more like R-1 work 15:27:14 Anything we should definitely do on R-2 instead of R-1 ? 15:27:33 i.e. we shoulddn't produce last release candidates too early 15:27:34 The couplethings there look good to me. 15:27:49 since they need to ingest late translations updates 15:27:56 ttx: We would still want to process RC requests if a project feels they are ready, right? 15:28:13 Or is there a reason to hold. Ah, late translations. Got it 15:28:22 smcginnis: yes, especially if they have a significant bugfix they want to throw "out there" for testing 15:28:36 ttx: Makes sense. 15:28:37 but we'd still need to refresh the RC on R-1 week 15:28:44 to catch for late translations 15:29:14 dhellmann, dims: does that make sense ? 15:29:33 yep 15:29:39 * dhellmann catches up 15:29:55 I'll take on the two remaining tasks for R-2 15:30:05 since I'm off on R-1 15:30:58 all of that seems ok 15:31:37 OK, let's close and get the branching show on #openstack-release started 15:31:49 Anything else before we close ? 15:32:11 nothing from me 15:32:18 Nor me. 15:32:34 i haven;t been able to raise any of the requirements folks on their channel yet 15:32:40 ++ to close 15:33:17 we should add a note to the process doc to coordinate the requirements branching time with them ahead of time so there is someone available 15:33:31 ack 15:33:33 #endmeeting