20:01:31 #startmeeting tc 20:01:32 Meeting started Tue Mar 8 20:01:31 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:01:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:01:35 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:01:39 Hi everyone! 20:01:40 ./ 20:01:44 Our agenda for today: 20:01:46 * edleafe hides in the back of the room 20:01:49 * rockyg is lurking but distracted 20:01:49 o/ 20:01:59 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 20:02:10 is Piet around 20:02:27 he added some topics one week ago 20:02:47 hmm. 20:03:22 thingee: do you know what he was looking for ? Adding personas and GUI checklist/heuristic to OpenStack Cross-Project Specifications 20:03:45 ttx: he's not around, perhaps should start in cross-project. 20:03:47 this is the first time I've seen ttx confused at the beginning of a TC meeting 20:03:57 * flaper87 writes this date down on a diary 20:03:58 well, usually the people submitting topics show up 20:03:59 ttx: I heard his talk in the product workgroup midcycle 20:04:12 hmm, ok. Let's skip 20:04:23 thingee: based on that was TC needed? Or cross project consensus? 20:04:24 The second topic kinda requires to have both mordred and lifeless in the room 20:04:41 and none of them are 20:04:44 heh 20:04:48 this is going really fast 20:04:53 looks like it will be a quick one 20:05:05 let's go back to that one if tey show up 20:05:08 #topic Review of stale governance changes 20:05:09 * flaper87 opens a new tab and loads netflix^Wgerrit 20:05:18 I'll skip the first one since that was for mordred too 20:05:19 annegentle: this should be a cross-project discussion 20:05:28 * Neutron stadium things 20:05:34 annegentle, ttx I'll reach out to piet 20:05:42 russellb posted an update on those. These reviews are basically stuck until the start of the next cycle 20:05:42 russellb: thanks for the update! That was useful :) 20:05:51 Should I abandon them and ask that people re-propose them once it's ready for consideration ? 20:06:04 We usually only keep things that are ready for TC member voting on the slate 20:06:09 ttx: i guess so 20:06:12 ttx: +1 20:06:16 ok, I will 20:06:25 * Split out the amended stackforge resolution (https://review.openstack.org/269862) 20:06:31 jeblair: any plans there, or still waiting for more feedback on the initial patchset ? 20:06:32 russellb: did I miss the upadte? 20:06:52 armax: that was a summary for the TC, I tink it was sent to the -tc list in reaction to my agenda item 20:06:53 armax: it was by email, just tried to summarize the status, and also indicated that it's on backburner in favor of mitaka release work 20:06:55 armax: trying to find the email link 20:07:01 armax: should have CC'd you sorry 20:07:02 862 is not really a think we're voting on -- it's something we already voted on... 20:07:05 oh, gotcha, thanks 20:07:07 I guess on the general topic of the stadium, is there anything useful that the rest of the TC outside of neutron can do to help move thing along? (either now or in next cycle) 20:07:24 armax: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2016-March/001139.html 20:07:25 jeblair: right, just wondering if I should keep it on the slate 20:07:26 sdague: i've been thinking about that, i'm not sure 20:07:26 russellb: no worries, I am good with abandoning thsose for now 20:07:33 * jeblair waits for neutron discussion to end 20:07:34 flaper87: thanks 20:07:37 armax: np 20:07:47 it's mainly a question of whether there's any general criteria we could write down that could have helped guide this 20:07:49 jeblair: or if you wanted to discuss the various suggestions live 20:08:19 russellb: we’ll get this resolved as soon as I can spare more mental cycles to the matter 20:08:36 russellb: with your help, of course :) 20:08:37 armax: sure, i agree that finalizing mitaka is more important, don't worry about it 20:09:09 ttx: jeblair right, I don't think we need formal vote on that one. Other than making sure the edits are good and annegentle and others are heling with that already 20:09:26 I thought I had reviewed that one, though. I must have forgotten to click "review" 20:09:33 ttx: well, i thought i did what we talked about in the tc meeting, so if we want to change the approach, discussing it here would be good 20:09:38 s/"review"/"post"/ 20:09:41 jeblair: I did wonder about "why isn't git history good enough" 20:09:57 but maybe I missed something 20:10:23 annegentle: apparently we as the tc decided it wasn't :) -- i think we decided we'd rather publish resolutions once, as we originally voted on them 20:10:34 jeblair: ah, voting. ok 20:10:44 annegentle: so, contrary to reference documentation, resolutions should be considered immutable 20:11:12 jeblair: yeah, the remaining question is how do we make sure the end result is not confusing to the reader, and this is why I suggested moving the original resolution to a subdirectory 20:11:21 so i guess the "big" question is whether we should do the approach in that change, or whether we should do what ttx suggests ^ 20:11:40 i don't object to that; if folks like it, i can re-propose with that change 20:11:45 the doc build is no longer live, but I remember the published result was pretty confusing 20:11:55 tbh, I don't think jeblair patch is confusing 20:12:18 the original does link to the updated one, so hopefully you end up at the right place regardless 20:12:18 flaper87: that's because you haven't seen the governance.openstack.org result 20:12:19 I'm happy with it. It keeps things in one dir and they are sorted by date anyway so, I'm good 20:12:36 ttx: oh, mmh. you got me there 20:12:49 recheck coming up :) 20:12:57 yep 20:13:00 ok 20:13:08 recheck recheck 20:13:19 * flaper87 rechecks ttx's recheck 20:13:35 let's move on to open discussion in the mean time ? 20:13:44 We can discuss best form in open discussion anyway 20:14:03 yeah, folks just let me know which style you prefer :) 20:14:04 sure 20:14:10 As far as the topic goes, I think this one shouldn't be abandoned 20:14:12 happy to oblige, just don't want to do it too many times :) 20:14:18 #topic Open discussion 20:14:22 * Election season coming up 20:14:27 Election officials kicked off the election season: 20:14:33 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088558.html 20:14:34 YAY! 20:14:38 I can't believe it's been 6 months since the last elections. Those sure passed by fast 20:14:46 On the TC side, 7 seats are renewed (jeblair, lifeless, flaper87, markmcclain, jaypipes, dtroyer and myself) 20:14:57 jeblair: you wanted to add something ? 20:14:59 can't believe it? 20:15:02 feels like elections never end 20:15:09 russellb: lol 20:15:27 is anyone *not* running again? 20:16:03 * jaypipes promises to build a wall between OpenStack and AWS and have Amazon pay for it. 20:16:10 jaypipes: does that answer your question? 20:16:14 :D 20:16:18 flaper87: heh, yep :) 20:16:20 lol 20:16:24 i'd like to bring the tc's attention to this spec: https://review.openstack.org/287577 20:16:34 it was brought up in the infra meeting today 20:16:41 jaypipes: are you going to insist that all design sessions start with a pledge to openstack? 20:16:45 i think it's fairly simple and straightforward, and it's a good idea 20:16:54 markmcclain: but of course. 20:17:04 jaypipes: will take a look. Thanks for the heads up! 20:17:07 jeblair: seems sane 20:17:09 jeblair: will it make it in time for this go around? 20:17:15 or is this longer term 20:17:15 I think we shouldn't need another subdomain and governance should suffice 20:17:21 but i do think it would be good for the tc to ack it, as well as provide feedback on whether we should host it under governance.o.o 20:17:33 jeblair: ++ 20:17:36 will check into it. 20:17:36 jeblair: I'm good with it being under governance 20:17:44 under governance sounds fine to me. 20:17:46 elections are a by-product of our charter anyway 20:17:51 under governance ++ 20:17:51 I'm fine either way 20:18:02 yeah, governance site feels like the right place for election details, but i don't want us to put content there which isn't directly controlled by the tc without some consensus 20:18:03 and election officials run them under formal delegation from the TC 20:18:05 top level makes it a bit more visible 20:18:12 and there were concerns on turnout 20:18:21 It's already confusing to have the many subdomains we have now. IF we can have it under governance, let's do that 20:18:22 fungi: if it's a subdir it sounds fine 20:18:41 then it's clear where the delegation ends 20:18:52 we would have to make sure we don't ever add that same subdir to the existing governance repo, or we'd compete with patches publishing to the location 20:18:57 it's trivial enough to graft a publication tree into a subtree of that site. just a line in the vhost config 20:19:29 sdague: i'm not sure we got a firm conclusion on whether we should push for it this cycle (time is short), but it doesn't affect the actual process too much, so we should be able to start using it mid-election even, but we don't want to confuse people. we might compromise on a soft-launch this cycle. 20:19:30 dhellmann: nah, it would just get shadowed by the election tree if you did it the way i mentioned, but implementation details anyway 20:19:57 fungi : sure, either way we have a potential for overlap. not a big deal, but something to be aware of 20:20:04 yep! 20:20:07 jeblair: yeh, if it's not going to hit before the elections start, seems best to soft launch and not really talk about it until next time 20:20:14 jeblair, fungi: have enough to proceed ? 20:20:16 agreed on soft launch 20:20:19 if we use g.o.o would there be links between the rc content and the election content? 20:20:21 just to prevent confusion 20:20:27 tonyb : we could add those 20:20:35 that's the part I thought would be hard ... 20:20:40 tonyb : either to the header, or inline where appropriate, or both. I can work with you on that. 20:20:55 dhellmann: okay thanks. 20:20:55 hyperlinks are simple. html borrowed them from gopher anyway ;) 20:21:03 fungi: ha 20:21:26 * Leadership training 20:21:37 gothicmindfood posted an update on that 20:21:42 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088646.html 20:21:47 Looks like the 'not two consecutive weeks' camp won against the 'not two US travels' camp 20:22:08 she is looking into other dates 20:22:20 plus, some of us were already booked before the announcement of the dates went out 20:22:22 comments/remarks ? 20:22:27 heh I was the only one who lives in Austin :) 20:22:27 I think that's great 20:22:39 do we have a set of goals for this trip? 20:22:52 oh hai. Most people seem pretty cool with June 28/29th 20:22:55 dhellmann: I think colette described the goals well 20:23:07 so - just fyi to everyone - that's what I'm going to look into and confirm via ML in the next couple days 20:23:07 something about sandwiches iirc 20:23:09 ok, I'm probably behind on email, I'll look for that 20:23:11 my only recommendation so far is to not do it in the west coast 20:23:16 jeblair: definitely sandwiches 20:23:21 flaper87: it will be in Ann Arbor, Michigan 20:23:26 flaper87: it's in Ann Arbor 20:23:28 it's way too far and expensive for a 2 days trip 20:23:29 I'm still skeptical of leadership training, but she managed to turn that into a reason why I should go 20:23:30 unless someone strongly objects to delicious sandwiches. 20:23:31 gothicmindfood: ++ 20:23:32 w00h00 20:23:52 ttx: she must have taken the course already :) 20:23:52 I think I didn't read the location on the email (or wherever it was announced) :D 20:23:54 ttx: my ninja-psychology is strong this month. :) 20:24:10 gothicmindfood: more like judo 20:24:14 flaper87: a leader would have read it 20:24:26 I *have* to go then 20:24:28 alright, next up 20:24:29 totally 20:24:35 * flaper87 can't miss that training 20:24:36 mtreinish: you had something to mention ? 20:24:42 so the leadership training is for TC members? what about those not on the TC? 20:24:44 flaper87: you need more leader foo 20:24:50 ttx: yeah 20:25:03 mriedem: thanks for bringing that up. gothicmindfood ^^^ i got that question as well 20:25:18 ttx: I wanted to bring up that in investigating the stable breakages on trove with mriedem we found that they don't really comply with the standard testing interface 20:25:20 i don't mind being a drone, but 20:25:30 mriedem: yeah, I'm not sold on that too. I think we should grow the next generation of leaders rather than camping on the existing ones 20:25:34 and also workaround things like global requirements as it suits their needs 20:25:35 mtreinish: way to bring me into this... 20:25:42 ttx: agree 20:25:48 oh dear 20:26:02 mtreinish: o.0 20:26:03 mriedem, annegentle: but then it's the first editoin and it's more of a test balloon 20:26:09 mtreinish: thanks for bringing your discovery to the tc 20:26:11 and this has been an issue for quite some time 20:26:11 mriedem: do you have links to that? I know there's a thread on the m-l 20:26:19 erm, mtreinish ^ 20:26:24 mriedem: heh, I couldn't not drag you in 20:26:27 mriedem: it initially, just because of scope, is meant for the TC/members of the board. but if we have extra space, I will definitely let the ML know and ask if anyone else wants to sign up! 20:26:29 ttx: we need to do both. 20:26:47 hmm, let's focus on trove now please 20:26:50 flaper87: https://github.com/openstack/trove/blob/master/tox.ini#L12-L16 20:27:01 oh dear 20:27:04 gothicmindfood: just *active* members or are we going to include previous members too? 20:27:10 I'd suggest discussing the scope of leadership training on colette's ML thread 20:27:14 what about trove ;) 20:27:16 mriedem: it's definitely meant as a first step towards 'doing leadership' for the whole community, so it's not meant to be exclusive, just meant to be a place to start 20:27:31 gothicmindfood: I mean, members up for election in 2 weeks 20:27:51 flaper87: active and previous i believe 20:28:00 russellb: don't tell me it was on the email 20:28:02 gothicmindfood did answer all of these questions in her excellent email :) 20:28:02 hahahhaha 20:28:05 flaper87: because we're straddling elections with this discussion, and we ostensibly have room for TC+others, it's been basically a given that current TC + future elected TC who are available and interested would be invited 20:28:09 flaper87: it was. 20:28:23 mtreinish: that is concerning 20:28:24 * flaper87 -> head -> desk 20:28:30 mtreinish: thanks for bringing that up 20:28:33 amrith : trove is using a version of pymongo not listed in global requirements, can you fix that? 20:28:49 dhellmann, I can certainly fix that 20:29:06 amrith : there's a custom install line in the tox.ini 20:29:07 Is following global requirements a requirement? 20:29:17 I'm more concerned with some of the 'broad and sweeping' statements that I've heard today about trove. 20:29:18 amrith: and, please, in the future let's not do that again. 20:29:24 mtreinish : was there anything else? 20:29:26 mtreinish: what other kinds of violations of the project testing interface did you find ? 20:29:27 cdent: it is if you're part of the big tent 20:29:34 cdent : it is for projects that claim to sync requirements 20:29:37 so I'd like to be more precise. 20:29:45 besides the fact that it's really a functional test job, a unit test job, and a sample updater in one tox job (which is just confusing) the functional tests don't conform to the standard testing interface 20:29:47 flaper87, do what? 20:29:49 trove's test-requirements also uses the troveclient tarball 20:29:57 cdent: dhellmann was more precise than I was 20:29:58 they don't run with testr or emit subunit (which iirc was part of that doc) 20:30:24 ew 20:30:28 mtreinish : have you raised this with the trove team already? 20:30:34 amrith: sorry for being vague. I meant to say that it's not recommended adding pip install calls to tox.ini. It'd be great if you could bring this feedback to the trove team 20:30:38 testing with trunk clients (unreleased) on stable branch has bit us in the past 20:30:53 and is biting us right now actually 20:30:56 which is why this was coming up 20:30:58 mriedem: yeah there's that too, which is just kinda weird 20:31:10 fwiw - this is where that was landed - 4 months ago - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/241754/ 20:31:20 dhellmann: not recently, I just found it today 20:31:24 mriedem, I understand some of what you are saying 20:31:33 dhellmann: but digging through history this has been a known thing for some time 20:31:33 but you'll also recall that on 2/5 I asked of the community http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/tmy2dema4baoulif 20:31:47 in regards to the bug we've been discussing today 20:31:48 dhellmann: like https://review.openstack.org/#/c/54436/ 20:31:57 for clarity, keeping your deliverable repos in sync with openstack/requirements is not strictly a qualifier for inclusion in the big tent, though it is important to, e.g., repos which need care from other cross-project teams who expect some degree of standardization 20:32:18 so, I'm happy to do whatever it takes to make progress but let's be more precise and avoid sweeping generalizations please. 20:32:31 dhellmann, I will push up a change to add pymongo to global requirements. 20:32:34 the trove ptl is cp16net 20:32:38 is that person around? 20:32:43 amrith: pymongo is in g-r 20:32:49 looks like we need to come up with a clear set of things that should be changed 20:32:51 anteaya, cp16net has been off on vacation for some weeks 20:32:53 it's just not blacklisting or capping whatever version breaks trove 20:32:55 anteaya : I think amrith is filling in temporarily 20:33:07 fungi: I think it's more problematic if you say you subscribe to and respect g-r and then you don't 20:33:10 so I'm trying to catch a large number of balls that are in the air. 20:33:17 mtreinish: yep 20:33:19 amrith: oh do you have an idea of when they will return? 20:33:22 dhellmann: thank you 20:33:31 anteaya, no I don't. 20:33:37 hmmmm 20:33:40 amrith: thanks for filling in for cp16net and attending the meeting 20:34:26 to be clear, the issue that mriedem and I are discussing is not "broken backward compatibility" but rather tests in liberty that are broken in a way that just needs fixing. Tests, not code that customers would use. 20:34:33 there's an ML discussion about this 20:34:37 a change has been proposed. 20:34:40 amrith: that's not accurate 20:34:46 ok, mriedem 20:34:49 let's discuss it 20:34:49 the tests are using troveclient as a user would, 20:34:55 to create an instance 20:35:01 we only recently started adding anything to the pti about openstack/requirements, and that was in relation to constraints. we may want to elaborate a bit more in that document. 20:35:06 it uses a kwarg in the troveclient api that was removed in master troveclient 20:35:08 which breaks stable 20:35:11 for the record, it looks like this was added 4 months ago as a workaround https://review.openstack.org/241754 20:35:34 so yes, the tests are busted, but they are busted b/c a deprecated kwarg was removed from troveclient 2.1.0 20:35:35 mriedem, removing the argument in master is fine, I believe 20:35:39 well, 20:35:46 it's fine if you're not following backward compat 20:35:47 fungi: sdague had linked to that in backscroll 20:35:49 they seem to be pinning things in tox.ini instead of requirements lists (and getting them into global requirements) 20:35:55 mriedem, that's not helpful. 20:36:04 ahh, i missed sdague's link. sorry! 20:36:06 specifically, a spec that lifeless has for backward compat 20:36:22 mriedem: amrith you also need to use semver 20:36:25 amrith: basically, the idea being clients and libs are backward compat until the oldest stable branch that uses them are still around 20:36:26 troveclient 2.1.0 was also a semver failure 20:36:31 yes, that too 20:36:37 but semver wouldn't have helped here anyway 20:36:40 nope 20:36:49 constraints would have, but trove unit tests don't use constraints on liberty 20:37:01 sdague, what is semver and is that part of the solution or just something tangential? 20:37:11 amrith : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226157/ - details here 20:37:30 mriedem, please put your comments in review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290069/ 20:37:39 so on 241754 i'm curious why there was a delay in getting a pin updated in global requirements. it seems that was acknowledged as a challenge in the review comments 20:37:55 and please, I am trying to get caught up on what is going on so being cryptic and terse is not going to help me do anything 20:38:18 you have a whole channel of people trying to help you 20:38:32 perhaps you can express some gratitude to them 20:38:32 anteaya, and I'm happy to take any and all help. 20:38:36 amrith : semver is "semantic versioning" and is a way of choosing version numbers to signal the nature of the changes in the release. http://docs.openstack.org/developer/pbr/semver.html 20:38:37 yeah i'm not trying to be terse, i've given a few options today and spend most of my day on unwinding this 20:38:40 I have a review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290069/ 20:38:41 amrith: semver = major.minor.patch versioning. 20:38:47 which I would appreciate comments in. 20:38:57 if you break backward compat you should increment major 20:39:01 amrith : that wouldn't really fix the problem, but you should become familiar with that anyway 20:39:16 i'd certainly like to figure out what challenges projects are encountering getting global requirements updates approved and propagated in a timely fashion. that the workaround got left on the project for months thereafter is a bit secondary i think 20:39:44 i don't really know what our goal here is for the tc meeting 20:39:49 agree fungi 20:39:51 anteaya, I would love for some feedback on my ML request (for help) http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/tmy2dema4baoulif 20:39:52 i was wonder that myself, mriedem 20:39:55 mriedem: I was about to say that 20:40:01 OK, so it looks like there are a number of things that should definitely be changed, in Trove's code and practices. Is there reason to believe any of those changes are impossible ? 20:40:02 personally, as of this morning, i wanted to either cap troveclient in liberty or revert the backward incompat change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290048/ 20:40:04 sounds like issues have been raised, amrith and trove team need some time to respond and address 20:40:09 thanks, I just saw a mention of "trove" so my ears perked up. 20:40:09 I see amrith is trying to catch up with the issue and working on a way to fix it 20:40:27 so, I'd say let's give him and the trove team enough time to work on the fix 20:40:37 flaper87, thank you 20:40:38 well, there are fixes posted, 20:40:46 it's a question of what's appropriate for end users 20:40:53 but that can happen in gerrit 20:40:54 I'm sure we can follow up on the mailing list and trove's channel if they need more support 20:41:01 it would be useful to have a list, maybe mtreinish and mriedem can put together an etherpad or something to help amrithwith tracking 20:41:10 dhellmann, ++ 20:41:14 mriedem: now if there is resistance in fixing the issues, I think we should definitely intervene 20:41:14 it's in the ML 20:41:23 amrith: no, thank you for bearing with us 20:41:23 mriedem : ok, that works, too 20:41:25 ttx: ++ 20:41:37 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088689.html 20:41:39 and while we're on the subject, dhellmann ttx we need to also discuss another python-toveclient for the FFE 20:41:51 amrith : we can take that out of this meeting 20:41:51 we could, maybe, roll all of these into one resolution. 20:41:54 mriedem: well parts are in the ML. Some of the issues I was raising weren't 20:41:56 dims, thanks for the link. 20:42:10 dhellmann, for now, one request 20:42:14 what do you want re: pymongo? 20:42:22 I see https://github.com/openstack/trove/blob/master/tox.ini#L12-L16 20:42:24 amrith : use the version listed in the global requirements repo 20:42:38 we can sort this out in -dev 20:42:40 amrith : and declare that you're using that version in the standard requirement list files 20:42:43 i don't want to derail the tc meeting 20:43:02 mtreinish : if you could follow up to the list with the rest of the issues, that would help 20:43:15 mriedem: according to the agenda, the agenda had been addressed prior to this item 20:43:23 ok, thx dhellmann 20:43:26 dhellmann: well I don't like that because it requires me to do something :) But, sure I can follow up on the ml 20:43:39 mtreinish: you dealt it 20:43:40 yep, let's bring discussion of the issues to -dev and -release. The Tc is now aware of the issues and will follow up on the resolution 20:44:14 #action ttx to put trove issues and status update on the agenda for next meeting 20:44:57 mtreinish : yeah, if you show up here asking for action, be prepared with documentation :-) 20:44:58 there is kind of a meta issue right, if a project core team isn't up on what it means to work on things in an openstack way, and it has to be caught outside and unwound outside of that team, we've got a bigger issue 20:45:21 especially because there is a very finite amount of global catchers time 20:45:26 sdague: ++ 20:45:38 sdague : Yes, clearly the trove liaisons need to become more active in their respective roles. 20:45:41 depends if the issue is with trove, or that it's hard to keep up with and understand "openstack ways" 20:45:45 global catchers are like, leaders right? :) 20:45:46 sdague: I'd rather assume good faith 20:45:50 also wondering about the PTl situation there 20:45:56 flaper87: I'm not assuming bad faith 20:45:58 mriedem: ha ha ha 20:46:03 mriedem: heh 20:46:07 sdague: sorry, misread you then! 20:46:13 I'm saying it's a problem that there ever was a disconnect here 20:46:25 that 2 core reviewers every thought the pymongo pin was a thing 20:46:30 sdague: that I agree with 20:46:33 if a PTL can go off the map without anyone knowing when he will likely be back, around release time... 20:47:05 that's a bit of a concern 20:47:16 sure. We just have to be very careful about deciding that it is mriedem and mtreinish's job to build a detailed fix plan for projects because they found issues 20:47:18 could be a very good reason ... emergencies happen 20:47:27 sdague : I'm asking for a list of issues, not fixes 20:47:29 because if that's the case, then people will stop raising issues that they find 20:47:30 sdague: yeah... 20:47:39 because they don't want to have to own fixing it 20:47:52 sdague: good point 20:47:58 otoh, you can't just show up here in a TC meeting complaining about a project and not expect anyone to ask for details 20:47:58 ttx, I understand that he let TC know. 20:48:03 ttx: sounds worth following up on 20:48:09 the reasons he's not here are likely not worth airing on IRC 20:48:13 amrith: do you know when or how? 20:48:16 but I assumed y'all knoew abotu it. 20:48:17 well, in the change which introduced it, the first patchset added it to the requirements list, but a (non-core) reviewer suggested putting it in tox.ini instead, rather than pointing out that there should be a change proposed to openstack/requirements 20:48:23 when/how what? 20:48:35 dhellmann: did I not provide details? 20:48:36 when the trove ptl communicated wtih the tc 20:48:38 sdague: right, a lot is about education. The Project team guide helps, the Upstream dev track should help too 20:48:40 fwiw, cp16net has been one of the only people helping with stable branch issues on trove, 20:48:44 so i've appreciated his work there 20:48:46 anteaya, I don't know 20:48:47 i didn't realize ht was out 20:48:50 *he 20:48:52 mtreinish : I was responding to sdague, I think you're fine but a summary would be useful 20:48:52 maybe a couple of weeks ago 20:49:00 but there will always be siloed teams doing their own thing thinking it's great 20:49:18 mriedem, I thought I was helping today 20:49:20 also, if you're not part of gate-tempest-dsvm-full, these things happen in satellite projects 20:49:21 with stable? 20:49:27 oh, wait, worse, the suggestion to just put it in the tox.ini did indeed come from a trove-core reviewer 20:49:34 amrith: yes, you are after i started the fire alarm :) 20:49:41 mriedem: good to know he has been helpful to the stable team 20:50:10 amrith: I don't know anything about it... but maybe others do 20:50:52 fungi: the owner of 241754 is the trove ptl 20:50:57