15:03:22 #startmeeting third-party 15:03:23 Meeting started Mon Aug 3 15:03:22 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is anteaya. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:03:24 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:03:26 The meeting name has been set to 'third_party' 15:03:38 #chair asselin 15:03:39 Current chairs: anteaya asselin 15:03:45 hello 15:03:55 <- laggy wifi 15:03:58 hi 15:04:01 hello! 15:04:17 asselin: do step in if I disappear 15:04:27 sure 15:04:35 thanks 15:04:51 what would folks like to discuss today? 15:05:28 hi 15:05:54 I noticed the CI scoreboard website went down over the weekend. Did it move or is it broken? 15:05:55 anyone with any questions? 15:06:06 akerr: what link? 15:06:17 http://ec2-54-67-102-119.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com:5000/?project=openstack%2Fcinder&user=&timeframe=72 15:06:42 that's hosted by patrickeast 15:06:51 asselin: Ok, I'll ping him about it 15:06:54 akerr, you can host your own fyi 15:07:27 #link scoreboard source http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/third-party-ci-tools/tree/monitoring/scoreboard 15:07:37 asselin: Ah, I noticed it looking more and more like standard infra branding and wasn't sure if it finally got legitimized 15:08:00 please, clarify that issue with merge failure reports from: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/206513 15:08:38 perhaps, we should discuss it here 15:09:39 just looked at the patch. 15:10:00 akerr: well I would like infra to host a copy of patrick's dashboard 15:10:16 anyone know how that spec is coming along? 15:10:24 from what i found, 3rd party merge failures can also occur if there's a network issue getting the source patch 15:10:55 eantyshev: there is nothing a dev can do if a third party ci has a merge failure 15:11:14 anteaya, last I heard, there were 'issues' regarding hosting a 'temporary' solution 15:11:15 krtaylor: around? the spec question above 15:11:20 so reporting that a third party ci has a merge failure is noise for the dev 15:11:43 asselin: why is it considered temporary? 15:11:46 anteaya: What if it is a valid merge failure? 15:12:02 its perfectly possible and legitimate for a 3rd party CI to have a merge failure when Jenkins did not. If the 3rd party CI waits for jenkins to vote +1 then the time between Jenkins beginnings its jobs and it finally voting could allow the base repo to be updated by conflicting merges 15:12:04 anteaya, I recall the spec said so 15:12:15 and yes we won't go through the effort of hosting something if it is temporary 15:12:28 asselin: can we remove the wrokd temporary? 15:12:42 akerr: ++, same I wrote in review 206513 15:13:12 valid merge failure, okay what does the dev do? 15:13:20 anteaya: they'll have to rebase 15:13:25 akerr, eantyshev perhaps we need to add the merge-check to 3rd party as well 15:13:25 there is nothing the dev is able to do 15:13:32 anteaya: In this case if jenkins were to recheck it would also find the merge failure 15:13:34 on a merged patch? 15:13:54 eantyshev: on valid merge failure, upstream zuul would report the same, so no point of every third-party CI reporting the failure too 15:13:57 no, we won't be asking devs to rebase for third paerty ci sytems 15:14:01 anteaya: this is prior to the final merge, it's during the check pipeline 15:14:20 if jenkins needs them to rebase, jenkins will tell them 15:14:43 devs won't be rebaseing for any other repo other thank the one in gerrit 15:14:47 anteaya: This is not a merge conflic with the 3rd party ci code, it's a conflic with the base project repo. its just that the 3rd party ci hit it first because it ran later 15:14:55 mmedvede: not exactly, there could be some time between these checks 15:15:00 s/thank/than 15:15:09 * krtaylor joins late 15:15:35 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194437/ 15:15:41 devs get information for their actions from jenkins, not from third party ci systems 15:15:51 anteaya, the spec for hosting a dashboard ^^^ 15:16:13 I'm indifferent on whether 3rd party ci's should comment on merge-failures though. Eventually jenkins will hit it too, so I could see the argument for silencing them 15:18:37 re: hosting monitoring dashboard - no issues except some confusion on big solution spec being moved, but we can discuss that tomorrow in the working group meeting 15:19:16 well I can't see other infra folks being willing to do the work to host a service if it is temporary 15:19:49 so word it how you like but don't expect much support from infra until that word is removed 15:20:44 it was jeblair that suggested it 15:21:13 well great then he must be willing to do the work 15:21:37 to get something working immediately, then we can roll out an end-all-be-all solution 15:22:25 we can do the work once the spec is approved, there are other good examples 15:22:45 that spec just needs more reviews 15:26:05 anything more here? 15:28:12 anyone have anything more on 206513? 15:29:38 anyone have anything else they would like to discuss today? 15:31:01 anyone have a reason why I shouldn't close this meeting? 15:31:06 is anyone else using the new 3rd party ci scripts? 15:31:43 asselin: link to what scripts you mean? 15:32:26 #link common-ci scripts: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/puppet-openstackci/tree/ 15:32:40 thank you 15:34:03 silence = yes or no? 15:34:54 I talk silence to mean not anyone currently staring at their irc client 15:35:00 s/talk/take 15:35:19 fair enough, then we can end meeting :) 15:35:24 asselin: I answered before - we use it, but not the most recent version 15:35:31 is anyone considering it but hasn't yet? 15:35:45 yes, i'd like to use it for a new CI setup 15:35:56 mmedvede: oh osrry I missed your answer before 15:36:12 anteaya: it has bee a few weeks ago :) 15:36:18 pots1: thanks, can you share feedback with asselin when you do 15:36:32 mmedvede: ah I forget anything longer than 5 minutes ago 15:36:49 mmedvede, thanks for the reminder. glad to hear it 15:36:49 will do 15:36:49 mmedvede: any feeback on the scripts? 15:37:03 pots1: thank you 15:37:28 has there been any consideration of trying to provide pre-built images? 15:37:29 anteaya: the puppet module works, but we still can not use it "as is", minor adjustments necessary for our CI, but they can go away soon 15:37:39 #link WIP patch for common-ci https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200330/ 15:37:48 mmedvede: okay thank you 15:38:27 reviews would be appreciated, at least at the level of "right or wrong direction" 15:38:38 mmedvede pots1 would either of you have some time to review 200330? 15:39:13 pots1, what do you mean by pre-build images? 15:39:22 anteaya: I'll find some time 15:39:29 mmedvede: thank you 15:39:56 mmedvede, thanks 15:40:43 in other words, minimal linux images with the packages installed. 15:41:23 pots1, I think the idea is to start with base linux image and have a script that does the right thing from there 15:41:32 e.g. the log server should be pretty simple but it took me a while to figure out what packages it depended on. i am new to puppet and so far it has only made things harder. 15:42:27 pots1, which documentation are you following? 15:42:55 your github repo readme.md 15:43:30 and anything else i can find. as a noob i'm not finding the docs easy to follow. 15:43:58 pots1, feedback would be very much appreciated, espceially specifics 15:44:14 sure, may i pm you? 15:44:29 pots1: can you offer some patches with what you would like to see? 15:44:39 pots1, sure 15:45:01 will do 15:45:39 thank you 15:45:51 anything more here? 15:47:06 not from me 15:47:14 thanks asselin 15:47:27 any reason why I shouldn't close the meeting? 15:47:53 asselin anteaya: thanks 15:48:11 pots1: thanks for speaking up 15:48:23 well let's wrap pu then 15:48:44 thanks to everyone for your kind attendance and participation 15:48:48 see you next week 15:48:54 #endmeeting