12:02:22 #startmeeting requirements 12:02:23 Meeting started Wed Jul 6 12:02:22 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is coolsvap. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:02:24 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 12:02:27 The meeting name has been set to 'requirements' 12:02:36 #topic rollcall 12:02:40 ah 12:02:44 o/ 12:02:47 o/ 12:02:48 o/ 12:03:27 poeple we have a spam attack in #openstack-meeting so we have started meeting here 12:03:36 I am not sure if it will be recorded or not 12:03:44 coolsvap: it will be 12:03:45 if not i will send the log to mailing list 12:04:14 alright lets see number80 12:04:16 #topic Any controversies in the Queue? 12:04:26 I think we have a lot to discuss here today 12:04:53 #link https://review.openstack.org/335455/ 12:04:54 the bump of oslo-concurrency in liberty for a sec bug 12:05:06 prometheanfire, alright lets go ahead 12:05:17 i was putting some reviews in master 12:05:18 coolsvap: you linked first :P 12:05:30 i will come back to it again 12:05:32 stable first 12:05:58 #link https://review.openstack.org/337277 12:05:58 prometheanfire, can you provide a link? 12:06:22 I have to agree with tonyb on that one, I'm -1 until we know it's the last resort 12:06:36 -1 too 12:06:46 the problem is that raising the version of olso-conc there will also make us raise the version of other things (oslo utils being the first) 12:07:35 my +1 was only from the perspective of a distro person, from a reqs perspective it's not fun 12:07:51 I think we need to define and set a policy for security-related bumps 12:08:00 yeah, as a downstream, I already did the update 12:08:14 ya, I target upper-constraints already 12:08:30 but I can imagine other people trying to be more conservative and backport security patches 12:08:33 same here, as much as possible we target u-c 12:09:10 it seems like there should be a way to backport to 2.3.1 12:09:55 ya, it's fair to try and really push for that 12:10:08 *nods* 12:11:08 coreycb`, can you add a review comment with your view? 12:11:23 coolsvap, yes I already did 12:11:38 ya, I should add another comment as well, clarifying my views 12:11:51 coreycb`, missed it sorry thanks 12:12:02 prometheanfire, yes please 12:12:15 apevec said it's not possible because stable/liberty was at 2.6.0, but I don't think that's a good enough argument 12:12:37 it's just a tag in git 12:13:11 well, we also have to accomodate stablemaint constraints in this case 12:13:24 true 12:14:00 maybe they'd be ok to push it as a hotfix release? 12:14:26 it'd be nice 12:15:26 ok rookie question, can you fill me in on where to view stablemaint constraints? 12:16:10 http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html 12:16:13 #link http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html 12:16:14 we need someone to check for update related to hotfix or something to work with, dhellmann dims? 12:16:56 ah you're talking about support phases 12:18:11 we can ask apevec, he's part of stablemaint too 12:18:54 number80, can you update team and review related to your discussion with apavec? 12:21:33 alright 12:21:35 i think we need to sync with tonyb about next steps or any of the stable cores regarding next steps 12:21:51 #action sync up with tonyb about next steps or any of the stable cores regarding next steps 12:22:21 moving on 12:23:14 we have to decide upon policy to allow requirements with similar functionality but with different attributes like performance 12:23:39 we have couple of reviews related to it in the queue 12:24:02 #link https://review.openstack.org/337683 12:24:53 am I disconnected? 12:25:09 ya, similliarlly we just merged another json lib 12:25:12 coolsvap: no :P 12:25:24 the new json lib is cython and quicker as well 12:26:03 prometheanfire, thanks for the ack I think we need to decide on policy for it 12:26:19 coolsvap: ack 12:26:39 I think if the library has promising attributes over the previous one with better support on distros 12:26:52 we should be more accommodating on adding these 12:26:53 well, I'd like more concrete arguments than "it's faster" 12:27:05 not against it, just allow flexibility to distro 12:27:41 for instance hiredis can be an optional deps as redis-py will use its parser when installed and benefit from perf bumps 12:27:45 number80, agreed but most will come with that attribute (being faster than previous one) 12:27:47 tracking it in UC would help as a packager, we basically do so for the entire python dep tree 12:27:58 proposal: having an optional-requirements 12:28:11 we can these in optional-requirements 12:28:26 for anything 'plugin' related? 12:28:30 stuff that are not required for runtime but could provide additional nice feeature 12:28:52 prometheanfire: depends on plugin definition :) 12:29:13 number80, agree but we need some mechanism to manage that across projects 12:29:13 might work, but would need to verry strictly define what optional means 12:29:21 Yes 12:29:24 which projects get to define what's optional 12:30:05 I would think the project that submitted this would think it's not optional 12:30:41 number80, can you draft something which we can discuss 12:30:44 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/optional-requirements-draft 12:30:50 coolsvap: will do 12:30:54 just created a etherpad for the same 12:30:59 number80, thanks 12:31:21 action for it? 12:31:22 #action number80 to draft optional-requirements to discuss in next meeting 12:31:23 but for immediate purpose, if the guys offers concrete data that hiredis is necessary for their workflow, I'm not against adding it 12:31:27 thanks 12:32:26 anything else in the queue? 12:32:32 ya, I'm ok with it, generally 12:32:48 nothing else controversial I think 12:32:54 *nods* 12:33:12 moving on 12:33:13 #topic Additional Gating - Updates 12:33:55 prometheanfire, any updates related to it? 12:34:50 not at the moment 12:35:19 prometheanfire, np I just added it to recurring meeting topic 12:35:45 I was about to say no update is just as valid as any other update 12:36:06 that's fine, real life has been busy for the last month and will be for the next couple weeks 12:36:40 I have a recouring reminder that I need to get more details on it, so it won't be forgotten though 12:37:00 prometheanfire, np it was action item for you and tonyb and I think review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/333650/ in good shape 12:37:05 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/333650/ 12:37:19 moving on 12:37:25 #topic Tasks from Etherpad 12:37:26 sure 12:37:48 anyone has any updates related to tasks from etherpad 12:37:56 we already covered the gating part 12:38:28 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/requirements-tasks 12:40:54 I think we can move on the topic with no updates this week. 12:41:02 #topic Volunteer for next 2 meetings 12:41:07 #info prometheanfire is running the meeting on 13 July 12:41:14 Any volunteer for July 20 meeting? 12:41:45 coolsvap, I can take that one 12:42:14 coreycb`, thanks 12:42:47 #info coreycb is running the meeting on 20 July 12:43:01 #topic Open Discussion 12:45:03 I think we call the meeting here 12:45:14 sgtm 12:45:15 prometheanfire, number80 coreycb` ^^ 12:45:26 alright 12:45:45 coolsvap, I don't have anything else 12:45:50 #endmeeting