19:00:13 #startmeeting releaseteam 19:00:14 Meeting started Thu Jul 25 19:00:13 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is tonyb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:15 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:00:17 The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' 19:00:48 o/ 19:01:07 evrardjp: Hey there! 19:01:10 o/ 19:01:28 i'm around, though multitasking on yardwork 19:01:39 also welcome back tonyb! 19:02:05 diablo_rojo, fungi: good to see you 19:02:11 fungi: Thanks 19:02:16 tonyb: :) 19:03:40 I think this might be everyone ttx and smcginnis are traveling / have just gotten home 19:04:58 #topic task list 19:05:03 Quite possibly. I saw messages from ttx saying he was fading fast several hours ago 19:05:13 Membership Freeze 19:05:46 As of yesterday I think there were 16 governance deliverables that don't exist in the train dir 19:06:01 but I think the majority wont be 19:06:06 * diablo_rojo grabs etherpad linl 19:06:22 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/train-membership-freeze 19:07:17 diablo_rojo: Thanks! 19:07:30 sorry took a while to digest that 19:07:37 No worries 19:07:52 Havent had a response on the helm ones 19:08:17 the compute-hyperv 19:08:21 too 19:08:34 I will ping OSH to make sure they are in this channel 19:09:36 evrardjp: Thanks 19:09:37 I just pinged pete for that -- it's not the first cycle OSH isn't taking decisions for releases 19:09:54 diablo_rojo: Looks like you have that under control 19:10:35 * tonyb steps away and tries not to slow you down 19:10:51 tonyb, heh more or less I can harp on people a little more to get the 16 --> 0 19:12:52 diablo_rojo: :) Well 0 repos without a response at least 19:13:09 M-2 tasks 19:14:00 Do stable autoreleases around milestones - https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2005701 19:14:29 I think that's blocked by: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/releases+branch:master+topic:feature/new_tools 19:15:03 But I'll run them today to process the missing m-2 releases (assuming that's needed) 19:15:26 and then next week we can test them with the stable stuff 19:15:34 does that sound ok? 19:16:33 Sounds fine to me (with the disclaimer that she's only reading process now) 19:16:36 let's say yes? 19:16:51 hehe 19:17:01 I know we need to get the unreleased libraries done. 19:17:25 Well I messed that (the process) up last week but I htink that'll get us back on track 19:17:56 Oh and deliverables that are intermediary that havent released yet 19:18:31 Sounds right to me. 19:18:38 (again, being no expert in the process) 19:18:39 \o/ 19:20:17 We missed a few things we were supposed to do befoer m-2 but we'll get that back on track 19:20:31 Indeed we will. 19:20:39 Look up progress on must-do/should-do improvements ... 19:20:42 Was a long stretch of a lot of us being out 19:20:56 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/relmgmt-train-ptg 19:21:01 around lin 93 19:22:06 The must do iteam all look to be in progess and -W'd by me so I shoudl fix that ;P 19:22:27 Engage with QA on communicating classification rates regularly 19:22:32 well they are not all reviewed, so let's wait for the -w to disappear first :) 19:22:46 I don;t know if we started doign that ? 19:22:51 tonyb, I dont think so 19:22:52 s/let's wait/I was waiting/ 19:23:13 Am happy to talk to them but idk what I'm supposed to talk about exactly lol 19:23:15 evrardjp: That's cool that kinda why I had them with -W 19:23:58 I can't remember what said "classification rates" is. 19:24:03 Basically we thought it'd be good for the QA team to drive getting bugs classified in terms of e-r 19:24:19 ohh 19:24:49 Leaving things as unclassified doesn't help us understand if we have a couple of big bugs that'd be bad to realease 19:25:08 got it 19:25:17 It's quite a bit of work to do it and I think we just wanted to start the conversation 19:27:14 It'd be good to have someone signed up to do that ... just start the conversation 19:27:36 Basically just to put it on their radar? 19:27:50 * diablo_rojo goes to look up when the QA meeting is 19:28:10 diablo_rojo: Yes and Thanks 19:28:12 *office hours 19:28:14 Okay 19:28:33 * diablo_rojo is all signed up and looks at evrardjp for all other open items ;P 19:28:54 Audit OUI traning material to make sure it matches the current process/tools 19:29:30 should I really sign up for ^ while you're such an expert on this diablo_rojo? ;) 19:29:59 hehe 19:30:26 evrardjp: You totally can ;P 19:31:11 We can leave that and 'Update branch creation script to add new python job template on master as part of opening a new series' for next week to assign 19:31:32 I guess I will tackle https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2005706 19:31:42 if I don't take the OUI training material, it seems fair 19:32:02 evrardjp: \o/ 19:33:05 evrardjp: do you need any pointers? 19:33:49 will check with dhellmann if necessary but that looks okay. 19:34:22 we can discuss stuff on reviews anyway. 19:34:28 cool 19:34:49 I think it's mostly a project-config review but we can totally do that 19:35:24 I expect there will be a little setup work (unless that part of the existing goal) and then a reasonably simple bash chnage 19:35:29 I thought it was building the tooling to, so it's ... more than just this 19:35:37 but yeah 19:36:16 the tricky bit for that is going to be telling that script the name of the next series 19:36:31 it already has the name of the series for the branch being created, but that's not the name we need for the job template 19:37:29 I see 19:37:54 dhellmann: We should have a 'future' release in series_status right? and the job name shoudl be well formed right? 19:37:55 we should have all of that information in the releases repo, though, so it's just a matter of exposing it to the script 19:38:03 right 19:38:15 dhellmann: okay 19:38:27 ok 19:39:10 the way I usually test changes to those project config scripts is by commenting out the "git review" or "git push" calls so they do their thing and then I can look at my local directory to see the results 19:40:06 the script to be changed is in project-config: roles/copy-release-tools-scripts/files/release-tools/make_branch.sh 19:41:12 I had it :) 19:41:20 see the call to add_release_notes_page.sh at the end of that script for an example of a similar modification 19:41:22 I was planning to do it that way, cool we are in sync 19:41:41 and then there are some things in goal-tools that may be useful for adding jobs to zuul yaml files 19:41:51 that's the openstack/goal-tools git repo 19:42:03 I was just checking if the release repo is available as required project to be able to load that lib 19:42:34 oh good thinking, I don't need to come up with code if someone already wrote that. Thanks for the pointer dhellmann! 19:43:38 moving on? 19:43:49 the tag-releases job that runs make_branch.sh runs when things merge in the releases repo, so it's not a dependency it's the *main* repo being processed 19:44:18 yeah, evrardjp and I can chat about other details later if he has questions 19:44:36 dhellmann: thanks again 19:45:20 Thanks dhellmann 19:46:10 and thanks evrardjp for doign that 19:46:30 We're almost done 19:47:08 #topic weekly emails 19:47:13 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails 19:47:21 Around line 295 19:47:50 Looks like the only thing thats needed is the list of cycle-with-intermediary that havent released yet 19:48:23 diablo_rojo: Yeah ... and to releas-type change proposal 19:49:07 I'll do both of those today 19:50:15 Cool :) Let me know if you get busy with more important work and need someone to pick it up. 19:50:32 diablo_rojo: Thanks 19:51:01 I *really* want to get it done today but if I fail I'll ping you 19:51:13 #topic open discussion 19:51:16 Anything? 19:51:20 tonyb, sounds good. 19:51:23 I got nothing 19:51:31 evrardjp: ? 19:51:44 checking on the yaml stuff, just a sec 19:51:54 evrardjp: okay 19:52:29 yeah just wondering if that's not a bazooka to kill a fly: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672545/ 19:53:01 do we really need to ensure some form of presentation validation, instead of just yaml semantics validation? that was asked on the channel 19:53:39 the yaml linter complains about indentation 19:53:44 (it's just to know more about the context of why this was done, but the convo can happen outside the meeting) 19:53:52 except that, no real item 19:53:55 since yaml is white-space sensitive it seems reasonable to be consistent there 19:54:16 dhellmann: yeah that sounds very strict in terms of presentation vs semantics as yaml can allow the items to not be indented 19:54:33 I don't know anything about that. I didn't write the linter. 19:54:40 I am fine with consistency 19:54:41 ok 19:54:53 +2 for consistency 19:54:54 got it, it's just using defaults. Sounds good enough to me as a validation 19:55:08 who wants to tweak a yaml linter anyway? :p 19:55:16 I know that the indentation validation has caught logical errors in the content in the past 19:55:30 things that should have been inside lists and weren't, or vice versa 19:55:39 yeah yaml still being relying on valid indentations 19:55:49 even though we give them tools, some people still modify those files by hand 19:56:21 yeah I am not complaining about the presence of linting -- just about its strictness compared to yaml standards 19:56:23 * tonyb is one of those people ;P 19:56:54 evrardjp: for me it really helps with review if we're strict 19:56:55 should ppl generate using another lib, they wouldn't care as long as it's valid. But anyway, here we decided a style guide 19:57:08 tonyb: yeah that too 19:57:14 also, it looks nice the way it is now 19:57:23 ;P 19:57:23 :D 19:57:38 yeah, I think PyYAML gets confused if the content isn't indented consistently, too, so it may be making assumptions that the standard doesn't require/support 19:57:56 also this just cuts down on bikeshedding of formatting 19:58:44 I just wanted to know because there is always someone that will ask, and I can point to this convo. Assuming future me remembers this 19:58:57 sorry to have taken that long for this! 19:59:01 evrardjp, future you can get the meeting logs 19:59:08 np, it's good to share background on this stuff 19:59:20 diablo_rojo: present me is not good at grepping meetings logs across years 19:59:35 evrardjp, I dont think anyone is 19:59:37 #action evrardjp to remind past-evrardjp why we chose to be strict in the linter 19:59:48 hahaha 19:59:57 :) 20:00:42 anything else? 20:00:46 none 20:00:55 Thanks everyone 20:00:58 #endmeeting