Thursday, 2019-08-01

*** armax has quit IRC00:00
*** jrist has quit IRC00:01
*** jrist has joined #openstack-release00:03
*** jrist has quit IRC00:04
*** jrist has joined #openstack-release00:10
*** jrist has quit IRC00:15
*** jrist has joined #openstack-release00:17
*** armax has joined #openstack-release00:44
*** efried has quit IRC00:51
*** efried has joined #openstack-release00:59
*** ricolin has joined #openstack-release01:04
*** radeks_ has joined #openstack-release01:19
*** radeks_ has quit IRC01:24
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release01:34
*** armax has quit IRC01:39
*** bobh has quit IRC02:19
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release02:26
*** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release02:30
*** ykarel|away has quit IRC02:35
*** bobh has quit IRC02:56
*** notmyname has quit IRC03:20
*** notmyname has joined #openstack-release03:20
*** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release03:26
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC03:27
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release03:33
*** bobh has quit IRC03:38
*** whoami-rajat has joined #openstack-release03:41
*** ykarel|away is now known as ykarel03:43
*** hongbin has joined #openstack-release03:45
*** hongbin has quit IRC03:46
*** udesale has joined #openstack-release03:46
*** ykarel is now known as ykarel|afk05:00
*** ykarel|afk has quit IRC05:04
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release05:21
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC05:25
*** dansmith has quit IRC05:26
*** dansmith has joined #openstack-release05:28
*** ykarel|afk has joined #openstack-release05:51
*** radeks has joined #openstack-release05:52
*** ykarel|afk is now known as ykarel05:58
*** radeks has quit IRC06:08
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release06:19
*** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release06:22
*** bobh has quit IRC06:23
*** ricolin_ has joined #openstack-release06:26
*** ricolin has quit IRC06:29
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-release06:57
*** e0ne has quit IRC06:59
*** pcaruana has quit IRC07:12
*** jtomasek has quit IRC07:29
*** amoralej|off is now known as amoralej07:33
*** cdent has joined #openstack-release07:36
*** ykarel is now known as ykarel|lunch07:37
*** pcaruana has joined #openstack-release07:42
*** hberaud|gone is now known as hberaud07:45
*** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release07:52
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-release07:53
*** electrofelix has joined #openstack-release07:58
*** jtomasek has quit IRC08:09
*** ykarel|lunch is now known as ykarel|away08:21
*** ykarel|away has quit IRC08:27
*** priteau has joined #openstack-release08:54
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release09:07
*** bobh has quit IRC09:12
openstackgerritMerged openstack/releases master: Release 0.32.0 of openstacksdk
openstackgerritMerged openstack/releases master: Release ironic-inspector 8.2.3 for Stein
*** e0ne_ has joined #openstack-release09:36
*** e0ne has quit IRC09:37
*** priteau has quit IRC09:43
*** priteau has joined #openstack-release09:44
*** priteau has quit IRC09:50
*** priteau has joined #openstack-release09:52
*** prometheanfire has quit IRC10:04
*** hberaud is now known as hberaud|lunch10:09
*** ricolin__ has joined #openstack-release10:28
*** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur10:29
*** ricolin_ has quit IRC10:31
*** prometheanfire has joined #openstack-release10:50
*** amoralej is now known as amoralej|lunch11:01
*** hberaud|lunch is now known as hberaud11:09
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-release11:29
*** e0ne_ has quit IRC11:30
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release11:45
*** priteau has quit IRC11:46
*** udesale has quit IRC11:49
*** bobh has quit IRC11:50
*** udesale has joined #openstack-release11:50
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release12:16
*** amoralej|lunch is now known as amoralej12:24
*** bobh has quit IRC13:12
*** mriedem has joined #openstack-release13:27
*** priteau has joined #openstack-release13:28
*** priteau has quit IRC13:53
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-release13:59
*** priteau has joined #openstack-release14:01
evrardjpDid you see dtantsur's mail on the MLs?14:22
*** jhesketh has quit IRC14:23
*** mlavalle has joined #openstack-release14:43
*** ykarel has joined #openstack-release14:43
corvushi, i need to restart zuul -- is there any release activity going on?14:45
corvusi don't see anything in the pipelines on the status page; so if you could hold off on starting anything for a bit, that would be great14:46
ttxevrardjp: yes14:54
ttxThere are two ways to look at the issue14:54
ttx1/ we propose the model change as a way to open the discussion, to avoid late model changes. Releasing a single intermediary release per cycle is still considered ok14:55
ttx2/ cycle-with-intermediary requires at least two releases, so we need something up around milestone-2 or we need to switch the model14:55
*** priteau has quit IRC14:56
evrardjpI understand why the question arises "I want to deal with my own releases, and we'll do when ready inside this cycle"14:56
ttxI see where dtantsur is coming from... if you want to just release when needed, then a flexible cycle-with-intermediary is better than a binary choice14:56
evrardjpI understand why the question arises "I want to deal with my own full release, and we'll do when ready inside this cycle"14:56
dtantsurttx: exactly14:57
ttxThe issue is that we need SOMETHING to fall back to14:57
evrardjpoh I am too used to other chats now, edition are weird14:57
evrardjpwhat's happening in my brain!14:57
ttxso that we don;t delay the end release because someone goes in vacation at the wrong time14:57
dtantsurmy other problem with rc is that I'll doubt anybody will test our rc's except for people who already consume ~ master14:57
dtantsurttx: you still can force a release at the end of the cycle if the maintainers are not responsive14:57
evrardjpttx: agreed14:57
evrardjpI was exactly understanding that point14:58
ttxdtantsur: sure. RCs are not very useful as a testing mechanism. They are a way to have fallback releases ready14:58
ttxwithout "releasing"14:58
evrardjpdtantsur: so basically you mean free for all, and auto release at the end if something wasn't done14:59
ttxdtantsur: one issue last cycle was that we had a bunch of deliverables realize they wanted to switch to cycle-with-rcs at the very end of the cycle, and we'd like to avoid that too14:59
ttxSo maybe the middle ground is:14:59
ttx- for things that do not seem to be producing intermediary releases, open a change to suggest moving to cycle-with-rcs, as a way to open the discussion early15:00
ttx- if that change is -1ed by the team (which ants to keep its options open) that is fine15:00
ttx- if the team fails to release in time, we autorelease around RC1 time to have a fallback15:00
ttx- next cycle when there is the same discussion on the opened patch, the release team can say "told you so"15:01
evrardjpthe question is... do we really need that middle ground?15:01
ttxevrardjp: late model switches make our work a lot more complicated15:01
evrardjpironic is following process, and knows, but I have the impression some projects... just let things slip15:01
dtantsurI don't think it's useful to suggest people to switch to cycle-with-rc if we're not sure anybody will test their rc. But I understand where you're coming from, and it seems like a good middle ground indeed.15:01
evrardjpttx: agreed there15:01
ttxdtantsur: us triggering releases should stay an oddity, not a model15:02
ttxThat is my concern with your proposed solution15:02
dtantsurisn't cycle-with-rc such a model?15:02
ttxthat basically teams do not "release" anymore15:02
ttxI still think a release engages the team, and I'd rather avoid the release management team forcing releases15:03
dtantsurso, the issue with e.g. networking-generic-switch is its development seems to happen in bursts. Somebody comes and pushes 1-3 features, we release them, then comes silence.15:03
dtantsurI like the ability to release after each such burst, because I assume people will consume such releases.15:03
dtantsurBut you're right, there are large periods when we simply don't have anything to release.15:03
ttxRCs are decided by the team. We just require one to be done before a deadline, so that we have a fallback15:04
ttxThey are still very much "release candidates" so the team is fine with them being "the release" unless they come up with a bew one15:04
dtantsurdoesn't it cause the same problems with inactive teams?15:04
dtantsure.g. what if they forget to make rc1?15:04
ttxdtantsur: we generally track them down... and sometimes we just ask the tC to vote on their removal15:05
dtantsurcannot the same logic be applied to the final release?15:05
ttxwe still have a couple of weeks before release to make things meet15:05
dtantsurfair enough15:06
ttxdtantsur: we want to be in a place where the week before release, we have release candidates for everything. Can be a RC, can be an intermediary release. That is where we'll cut stable branches from if nobody shows up the last week]15:06
ttxactually we want to be in that situation by RC115:07
ttxthe week before release we want to have enough free time to solve any problem15:07
ttxThat is how we always hit release date in the past15:07
ttxdespite having hundreds of moving pieces15:08
ttxdtantsur: I'll raise it on the meeting tonight and get some form of consensus from the team15:08
*** ykarel is now known as ykarel|away15:08
*** ykarel|away has quit IRC15:17
*** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release15:17
*** ykarel|away has quit IRC15:18
*** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release15:19
*** ykarel|away has quit IRC15:20
*** ykarel|away has joined #openstack-release15:20
*** ykarel|away has quit IRC15:36
*** e0ne has quit IRC15:37
*** cdent has quit IRC15:48
*** priteau has joined #openstack-release15:50
*** whoami-rajat has quit IRC15:51
*** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release15:51
*** amoralej is now known as amoralej|off15:52
*** armax has joined #openstack-release15:58
*** hberaud is now known as hberaud|afk16:00
*** lbragstad has quit IRC16:29
*** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk16:38
*** priteau has quit IRC17:05
*** electrofelix has quit IRC17:06
*** hberaud|afk is now known as hberaud17:08
*** bobh has joined #openstack-release17:11
*** bobh has quit IRC17:11
*** udesale has quit IRC17:14
*** whoami-rajat has joined #openstack-release17:15
*** ricolin__ is now known as ricolin17:30
*** hberaud is now known as hberaud|afk17:39
*** hberaud|afk is now known as hberaud18:10
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release18:16
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC18:32
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release18:40
*** armstrong has joined #openstack-release18:50
ttxohai all18:59
tonyb#startmeeting releaseteam19:00
openstackMeeting started Thu Aug  1 19:00:17 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is tonyb. Information about MeetBot at
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.19:00
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: releaseteam)"19:00
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam'19:00
ttxi did push a full agenda for today :)19:00
tonybttx: Thanks19:00
tonybdiablo_rojo, armstrong: Hello19:01
smcginnisHow's we get so far down in that tracking etherpad already?19:01
ttxR-11 it is19:01
fungii never can remember the agenda url19:02
ttxscroll down to ~27719:02
fungithank! would be awesome if it were just mentioned at the start of each meeting19:02
tonybfungi: I only know it because it's perma-open19:02
ttxI trained my firefox to remember it for me19:02
fungiyeah, i typically find it by starting to type some stuff into the url bar and see what comes up19:03
fungi(i suppose i should really use bookmarks)19:03
ttxshall we start?19:03
dhellmanncranky email response sent to the thread about release models19:04
dhellmannoh, hi :-)19:04
tonyb#topic Late train-2 milestone actions19:04
*** openstack changes topic to "Late train-2 milestone actions (Meeting topic: releaseteam)"19:04
ttxSo I did recompile the list of libraries that were not refreshed since milestone-1, and looked up the recent changes19:04
ttxResult at
ttxwith the likely candidates in bold19:04
ttxIn theory we should propose a release for all of those19:05
*** jtomasek has quit IRC19:05
ttxAny objection? Any volunteer to push those?19:05
diablo_rojodhellmann, several cranky responses, lots of shooting the messenger19:06
dhellmanndiablo_rojo : I meant my own cranky response :-)19:06
diablo_rojodhellmann, ah I have only seen the three previous ones19:06
dhellmannttx: when you say "all" do you mean the bolded ones, or all of them?19:06
tonybttx: Sounds good to me.  I was on my todo list for this week but it hasn't happened19:06
dhellmannok, no objection19:07
ttxWe now just need someone to push those19:07
tonybI'll do them (my) tomorrow.19:07
fungia.k.a. "saturday"19:07
tonybI have arranged to work this weekend to catch up on some of the community work I have dropped19:07
ttxNext we have any leftover from the membershipfreeze list19:08
tonyb2 days isn't enough but it will help19:08
fungitonyb: that sucks, you deserve a weekend19:08
ttxit seems we still have a few misses19:08
tonybfungi: I agree but ....19:08
ttxLike python-adjutantclient19:08
diablo_rojottx, yeah I tried to ping them again when they didn't address that one but have had no response19:08
diablo_rojoI can ping again.19:09
ttxIt feels like we can propose its addition. Can't have adjutant without python-adjutantclient19:09
smcginnisSeems like we should have a probationary period for newly accepted projects. Adjutant had more activity before it was accepted than after.19:09
ttx    cyborg-tempest-plugin19:09
ttxsame for ^19:09
ttxsmcginnis: thatis not our call19:09
ttxbut we can raise it to the TC yes19:09
smcginnisYeah, just musing.19:09
diablo_rojoAlso no response.. despite email and attempts at direct pings19:10
tonybCan one of y'all take it to the TC.19:10
ttxsure can do19:10
ttxwhat about the ironic ones?19:10
* ttx checks if they are not done already19:11
ttx    networking-generic-switch-tempest-plugin needs to be made release-management: none19:12
diablo_rojoNo that one didn't get proposed yet lastI checked19:13
tonybI don't know about ironic19:13
smcginnisShouldn't the tempest plugins just be auto? Or are these ones that declared otherwise?19:13
ttxsmcginnis: yeah...19:13
tonybI think tempest-plugins shoudl just be auto19:14
diablo_rojoTheJulia, agreed the ironic one should be none, there just hasn't been a patch yet.19:14
ttxok, feels like we need to do a number of follow-ups, but I don't want to spend all the meeting on that19:15
tonybWell we can make the patch19:15
*** hberaud is now known as hberaud|gone19:15
ttxOSH is a non-issue since they are not train material anyway19:15
ttxpuppet-crane was, I think, retied?19:15
tonybttx: yup it did19:16
ttxinstack-undercloud and tripleo-common-tempest-plugin we'll need to doublecheck and propose in case that was not done already19:17
ttxThat leaves compute-hyperv19:17
ttxwhich I suspect gave no update19:17
tonybI think instack-undecloud is deprecated if not retired19:17
fungithat grey area where stable branches are still maintained but development on master has ceased19:18
tonybAhhh yeah right19:18
ttxwe have a "deprecated" mention for that case19:18
ttxin the governance file19:18
fungiyeah, they stopped development before stein released19:19
fungi(or as of rocky at any rate_19:19
ttxThat leaves kolla-cli and compute-hyperv as unknowns19:19
ttx(if we propose all the others)19:20
ttxI'll take the action of proposing all those we have "let's propose it" on19:20
tonybttx: Thanks19:20
ttxIf someone can take the action of reaching out (again) to kolla and winstackers19:20
diablo_rojottx, I can try to poke those two again19:20
ttxI don;t think we should propsoe those19:21
ttxunless they want it19:21
ttxOK, last item on those late things... ACL19:21
ttxI did push to fix compute-hyperv19:21
ttxKayobe will also need an update but that is better done after it's been renamed. Scheduled for R-8 week19:21
ttxthat was the only two that needed adjustment19:22
diablo_rojoNot so bad19:22
ttxdiablo_rojo: basically only affects things that were unofficial and become official19:22
ttxthen we have to fix the ACL19:22
ttxOK that was all19:23
smcginnisOut of curiosity, what's the new name for kayobe?19:23
ttxx/kayobe -> openstack/kayobe19:24
smcginnisAh, gotcha.19:24
ttxtonyb: next topic?19:24
tonyb#topic Should we be OK with cycle-with-intermediary doing only one late release (dtantsur's thread)19:24
* ttx catches up on the therad19:24
*** openstack changes topic to "Should we be OK with cycle-with-intermediary doing only one late release (dtantsur's thread) (Meeting topic: releaseteam)"19:24
smcginnisThe reason we moved away from that was avoiding finding out at the very end that there's been no release and the current state of the repo is broken, if I remember correct.19:25
* tonyb will make do with the summary19:25
ttxyeah, dhellmann can you summarize?19:25
dhellmannI gave the reasoning in
dhellmannbasically, we need a good release to use to create their stable branch19:26
ttx16:54 <ttx> There are two ways to look at the issue19:26
ttx16:55 <ttx> 1/ we propose the model change as a way to open the discussion, to avoid late model changes. Releasing a single intermediary release per cycle is still considered ok19:26
ttx16:55 <ttx> 2/ cycle-with-intermediary requires at least two releases, so we need something up around milestone-2 or we need to switch the model19:26
dhellmannand we can get a good release for that by either them letting us release for them (change models) or them releasing now19:27
ttxI guess the key question is... are we ok with cycle-with-intermediary things being released only once19:27
dhellmannI don't think it's safe to do, no19:27
diablo_rojodhellmann, thank you for your reply to the thread I appreciate you defending the messenger.19:27
smcginnisThere's also the question of cycle-automatic releasing more than once.19:27
ttxsmcginnis: I would be OK with that, but I fail to understand the use case19:28
ttxsmcginnis: cycle-automatic is for things that are not relally released, just happen to need one per cycle at the end19:28
ttxso if they do a feature release of their tempest plugin we have a mismatch19:29
dhellmannyeah, the point of describing and naming these models is to clearly differentiate them from each other. If we've missed a case, that's fine. But "I want to be called X but act like Y" isn't a good plan.19:29
ttxbasically, he hates cycle-with-rcs and would not like falling into it just because he has nothing to release19:30
ttxwhich I can understand19:31
ttxcycle-with-rcs is good when you know you only want one19:31
ttxcycle-with-intermeidary is good when you know you have 2+19:31
ttxbut when you have no idea...19:31
fungiwould a better approach be to have him describe the release model he wants and then we can explain which parts aren't reasonable/logistical?19:32
fungiat which point it likely reduces to an existing release model already defined19:32
ttxfungi: I think that would be cycle-with-whatever-happens19:32
fungithat sounds like independent to me19:32
dhellmannfungi : not quite, because independent isn't part of the openstack release19:33
ttxno, still want a stable branch at the end tied to the release19:33
ttxTo be fair, in the recent past we allowed cycle-with-only-one-intermediary19:33
ttxthe reason why we reinforced the "must have at least 2" requirement was to force some freshness and have a better fallback19:34
dhellmannI thought the deliverable where we had that issue with branching incorrectly belonged to the ironic team, but maybe it was tripleo19:34
dhellmannmaybe it was both of them19:34
fungiit's happened several times with tripleo deliverables19:35
ttxI think it's fair that they would not know in advance how many releases will be needed19:35
ttxwhat would be the issue with saying intermediary is 1+19:35
fungibut it's also fine to have some point releases on master at arbitrary points in the cycle that cover whatever commits happen to be new19:36
ttx(we had the case with swift last cycle when they did only one)19:36
dhellmannif they get to the end of the cycle and miss the deadline, would we just not branch them?19:36
tonybWe have explained the reasons and the consequences and IIUC the majority of them will be faced by the ironic team so I'm inclined let them go with one19:36
ttxdhellmann: we do the same for cycle-with-rcs to get a RC119:37
smcginnisWe used to force a final release if none was done. But it was at the end during the crunch, so that wasn't fun.19:37
ttxWe could autorelease when we need a thing. Like I said earlier, my main issue with that is that it would become the convenience, and teams would no longer "own" their releases19:38
dhellmannI want us to avoid getting into a situation where something automated has done the wrong thing. If we can avoid that, then I don't care if projects don't actually do releases until the very end of the cycle.19:38
dhellmannLots of them already don't pay much attention to that part of the process19:38
ttxthe deliverables where you have no idea how many releases you will do are the sames you probably would not mind being autoreleased19:39
dhellmannYou'd think. Except the ironic team is the one objecting.19:39
dhellmannanyway, I don't know how much my vote on this should really count, so I'll accept what the group decides19:39
ttxHere would be my proposal19:40
fungiespecially problematic if something automatic has done a wrong and undoable thing19:40
ttxbetween milestone2 and milestone3 we look up intermediary things that have not done a release yet.19:40
fungier, wrong and not-undoable19:40
ttxWe propose a switch to cycle-with-rcs, and use that to start a discussion19:40
ttxat that point three things can happen19:40
ttx(1) you realize you could do a release, and do one now19:41
ttx(2) you realize you only want to do one release this cycle, and +1 the patch19:41
ttx(3) you have no idea where you're going and would like to release as-needed, and -1 the patch19:42
ttxIn the case of (3), if by RC1 freeze we still have no release, we'd force one19:42
dhellmannwhat if we just propose a release, and not a model change? then they only have to choose between (1) and (3)19:42
ttxthat would work too. I just wanted to put the cycle model change on the table19:43
ttxbecause I still think it's the best way to do "one release per cycle"19:44
ttxIf the PTL chooses (1) and proposes a release, we abandon our patch19:44
tonybttx: That works for me.19:45
smcginnisttx: Would it be a good next step for you to respond on that thread summarizing this and get feedback before we go too much further in making any changes on our own?19:45
fungii guess the contention is between not knowing that they want more than 1 release for a particular cycle vs not being allowed to have more than 1 release for a given cycle?19:45
smcginnisI just think it would be good for buy-in and spreading awareness.19:45
ttxsmcginnis: I could do that tomorrow, but feel free to beat me to it19:46
ttxI fear the thread will explode ebfore I can post19:46
ttxand my head is ready to explode, been a long day, so I;d rather not do anything tonight19:46
* dhellmann promises not to post any more inflammatory messages to that thread 19:47
tonybdhellmann: I didn't think it was inflammatory19:47
ttxdhellmann: I started a post like yours but put it back in the draft box19:47
diablo_rojodhellmann, I didn't think it was inflammatory either19:47
dhellmannmaybe I managed to edit it out, then19:48
ttxtonyb: I think we can move on to next topic19:49
tonyb#topic Stuck reviews19:50
*** openstack changes topic to "Stuck reviews (Meeting topic: releaseteam)"19:50
ttxI noticed a few patches that seem to have trouble getting W+1ed19:50
ttx (the stable-branch-mode:none one, maybe it's time to W+1)19:51
ttxfeel free to do that now :)19:51
ttx (Update Python testing runtimes - not clear if that is something we want)19:51
ttxI'm a bit unclear on that one19:51
ttxI think we want it19:52
smcginnisI'm for it.19:52
dhellmannwhich version of python do our jobs use?19:52
fungilooks like 3.6 and 3.7 right now19:53
tonybthose ^^19:53
fungiso in theory this change is a no-op, i think19:53
smcginnisFor our purposes, we could probably also just do py3 and not be as specific.19:53
smcginnisBut if all other OpenStack projects are requiring the use of py37, we might as well follow along.19:53
tonybI'm okay with it.  I didn't mean to slow it down that much19:53
fungiyeah, it's not a repository which is released as part of the cycle (there's a bit of irony) so the supported runtimes pti is a bit less applicable19:54
ttxI'll let someone with enough brain juice to understand it push the W+1 button19:54
fungibut fine to follow19:54
ttx (new_release reformat blocking Oslo releases)19:54
ttxdoes anyone know why that happened?19:54
smcginnisevrardjp fixed new-release.19:54
funginote that the python runtimes change is also self-testing so you can just see what jobs it ran19:54
smcginnisNot sure why bnemec-pto hasn't updated that, but now that I see his nick I guess I know.19:54
ttxso this needs to be reposted ?19:54
ttxmaybe the answer is in his current name19:55
ttxok, can someone leave a comment on that one?19:55
ttx (should cycle-automatic allow intermediary releases ?)19:55
ttxSo we discussed that earlier19:55
*** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release19:55
ttxI feel like cycle-automatic should not19:55
ttxotherwise we make the autorelease not a exceptional corner case but more of a normal thing19:56
ttxcycle-automatic was designed for things that technically need a release at the end of the cycle but where "the release" does not mean much19:57
ttxand therefore was constantly overlooked19:57
fungimarking time, in essence19:57
fungi"this was the state of the repository at the time openstack released foo"19:57
ttxI'd prefer if it stayed that way19:57
smcginnisI could see teams liking the idea of releasing whenever they found a need, but knowing there will be a final one done for them. But per previous discussion, I'd rather avoid that extra work falling on this team.19:57
ttxmy understanding is that tempest does not really use the released version of the plugin ?19:58
ttxbut gets it from master?19:58
ttxand since it is the only user of the plugin...19:58
tonybttx: vendors package the releases (IIUC)19:58
fungithe primary use case we discussed was refstack users19:59
ttxtonyb: yes but not during the cycle right19:59
smcginnisApparently some do.19:59
tonybttx: RDO does19:59
fungitesting old openstack version $x, i use tempest $y and "corresponding" plugin versions19:59
smcginnisOr at least that has been the response indicated when I've asked others when they've done interim releases of tempest plugins.19:59
ttxso we can be OK with intermediary releases19:59
tonybttx: basically if theere is a release of anything in OpenStack RDO will grab it ASAP20:00
ttxas long as cycle-automatic is limited to corner cases20:00
ttx(like tempest plugins)20:00
fungiit's more being able to publish/track which versions of the plugins someone should use when using a particular version of tempest20:00
ttxI don't really care20:00
ttxit's a bit of a slippery slope but meh20:00
tonybfungi: That's a nice use too20:00
ttxeveryone ok with this?20:01
tonybttx: Yup20:01
ttxsmcginnis: can you comment to that effect on that review?20:01
ttxISTR you were involved in it20:01
smcginnisYep, will do.20:01
smcginnisI just posed the question.20:01
ttx (the big YAML update... can we just merge it before it's outdated again)20:01
ttxcan we get this one in now?20:02
ttxthat was all I had20:02
ttxand we are past time20:02
*** ltomasbo has quit IRC20:02
openstackgerritMerged openstack/releases master: Add stable-branch-mode:none option
tonybJust the PTG thing20:03
smcginnisIt's a small change but unfortunately touches a lot of files.20:03
ttxIs PTG/FOrum planning urgent?20:03
tonybare we going? do we need space? howmuch?20:03
ttxI'm going20:03
ttxwe can meet in a corner20:03
diablo_rojoI'll be there.20:03
smcginnisNo official confirmation, but I believe I'm going.20:03
ttxHalf a day?20:03
tonybsmcginnis: do you have a tool to check for late additions of 'true' ?20:03
tonybThat sounds godo to me20:04
tonybI shall make it sow20:04
fungii'll be there and can join in discussions if i'm not too overbooked20:04
smcginnistonyb: The gate rebase on master should catch any, but I just rebased that this morning so I think we should still be good.20:04
tonyb*so even20:04
dhellmannI won't be there this time20:04
*** amoralej|off has quit IRC20:04
tonybdhellmann: :(20:04
dhellmannyeah, :-(20:04
tonybsmcginnis: I was thinking of like in a couple of weeks20:04
fungiwell, at least i'm as likely to be there as i can be, pending visa approval and hurricane season20:04
diablo_rojodhellmann, there is always TSP..20:04
ttxalright then, I need to run20:05
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Release Managers office - Come here to discuss how to release OpenStack components - Logged at"20:05
openstackMeeting ended Thu Aug  1 20:05:48 2019 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at . (v 0.1.4)20:05
openstackMinutes (text):
tonybThanks so muych everyone20:05
diablo_rojoThanks tonyb!20:06
*** jtomasek has quit IRC20:06
ttxThanks tonyb !20:06
tonybttx: thanks again for building that agenda20:08
* tonyb needs coffee20:08
tonybBecause I wasn't doing enough:
diablo_rojoTHE CUTE20:10
dhellmannthose feet look ominous20:10
smcginnisGoing to be a big doggo. :)20:11
cmurphynow i'm glad i lurk here20:11
diablo_rojocmurphy, lol20:12
smcginnisCome for the software releases, stay for the adorable pets.20:12
diablo_rojotonyb, I think thats two votes for more puppo pictures20:12
tonybYeah he'll be a 'medium' dog20:12
tonybsomeone I can take on trail runs20:13
tonybdiablo_rojo: Well maybe from time to time20:14
*** tosky has joined #openstack-release20:17
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC20:35
openstackgerritMichael Johnson proposed openstack/releases master: Release octavia-dashboard 1.0.2 and 2.0.1
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-release20:40
openstackgerritMerged openstack/releases master: Raise YAML compliance to 1.2
openstackgerritSean McGinnis proposed openstack/releases master: Oslo releases for 2019-7-23
smcginnisTagging job failure appears to just be a timeout from that YAML patch. Nothing to see here, move along.21:42
*** mriedem has quit IRC21:53
*** tosky has quit IRC22:07
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release22:22
*** dustinc_ has joined #openstack-release22:29
*** kmalloc_ has joined #openstack-release22:30
*** dtantsur has joined #openstack-release22:30
*** dtantsur|afk has quit IRC22:37
*** mordred has quit IRC22:37
*** kmalloc has quit IRC22:37
*** dustinc has quit IRC22:37
*** kmalloc_ is now known as kmalloc22:37
*** dustinc_ is now known as dustinc22:37
*** mordred has joined #openstack-release22:44
*** e0ne_ has joined #openstack-release22:45
*** mlavalle has quit IRC22:45
*** e0ne has quit IRC22:46
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-release22:47
*** e0ne_ has quit IRC22:50
*** e0ne has quit IRC22:52
*** whoami-rajat has quit IRC22:55
*** ianychoi has quit IRC23:12
*** trident has quit IRC23:54
*** diablo_rojo is now known as diablo_rojo_23:56
*** diablo_rojo_ is now known as diablo__rojo_23:56
*** diablo__rojo_ is now known as diablo_rojoooooo23:57
*** diablo_rojoooooo is now known as diablo_rojo23:57
*** trident has joined #openstack-release23:59

Generated by 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!