| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-release | 00:00 | |
| *** brinzhang has joined #openstack-release | 00:16 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 00:30 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 01:01 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has joined #openstack-release | 01:56 | |
| *** brinzhang has quit IRC | 01:59 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 02:55 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-release | 02:56 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 03:00 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 04:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-release | 04:33 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has quit IRC | 05:13 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has joined #openstack-release | 05:13 | |
| *** brinzhang0 has joined #openstack-release | 06:00 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-release | 06:01 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has quit IRC | 06:04 | |
| *** sboyron has joined #openstack-release | 06:45 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-release | 06:51 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 06:51 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-release | 06:57 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:04 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 07:05 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has joined #openstack-release | 07:14 | |
| *** brinzhang0 has quit IRC | 07:17 | |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 07:26 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-release | 07:29 | |
| *** jbadiapa has joined #openstack-release | 08:15 | |
| openstackgerrit | Carlos Goncalves proposed openstack/releases master: Release octavia 6.1.0 and 5.0.3 https://review.opendev.org/758606 | 08:28 |
|---|---|---|
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: New major release for tripleo-upgrade. https://review.opendev.org/755490 | 08:45 |
| *** brinzhang0 has joined #openstack-release | 09:05 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has quit IRC | 09:09 | |
| *** suryasingh has joined #openstack-release | 09:11 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has joined #openstack-release | 09:20 | |
| *** brinzhang_ has quit IRC | 09:20 | |
| *** brinzhang has joined #openstack-release | 09:21 | |
| *** brinzhang0 has quit IRC | 09:24 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:55 | |
| ricolin | Some weird thing happened to heat release note, appears heat victoria release note adopt all release notes from previous cycle | 10:37 |
| ricolin | https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/heat/victoria.html | 10:38 |
| ricolin | any hints?:) | 10:38 |
| *** ianychoi_ has joined #openstack-release | 11:23 | |
| *** ianychoi__ has quit IRC | 11:27 | |
| *** marios has joined #openstack-release | 11:30 | |
| hberaud | ricolin: I take a look | 11:34 |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 11:43 | |
| hberaud | ricolin: I guess we need that https://review.opendev.org/#/c/753334/ | 11:43 |
| openstackgerrit | Daniel Bengtsson proposed openstack/releases master: New bugfix release for oslo.messaging. https://review.opendev.org/758799 | 11:57 |
| openstackgerrit | Daniel Bengtsson proposed openstack/releases master: New bugfix release for pbr. https://review.opendev.org/758804 | 12:18 |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:19 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-release | 12:21 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:25 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-release | 12:28 | |
| *** priteau has joined #openstack-release | 12:30 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-release | 12:31 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:54 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-release | 12:57 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Release os-win 5.2.0 (Victoria) https://review.opendev.org/755279 | 13:13 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Add examples of previous highlights https://review.opendev.org/755665 | 13:13 |
| *** sboyron_ has joined #openstack-release | 13:23 | |
| *** sboyron has quit IRC | 13:26 | |
| *** sboyron has joined #openstack-release | 13:31 | |
| *** sboyron_ has quit IRC | 13:32 | |
| openstackgerrit | Hervé Beraud proposed openstack/releases master: Add Wallaby deliverable files https://review.opendev.org/758815 | 13:32 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Open Infrastructure Summit platform issues are being worked on by OSF events and webdev teams, status updates will be available in the conference "lobby" page as well as the #openinfra-summit channel on Freenode (though it is presently not logged) | 13:35 | |
| *** vishalmanchanda has joined #openstack-release | 13:47 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-release | 13:57 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 14:00 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 14:02 | |
| cgoncalves | release team: Octavia EOL'd Queens and Rocky months ago but their stable branches still exist. could you please remove them? thanks | 14:04 |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 14:04 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 14:05 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 14:06 | |
| smcginnis | cgoncalves: I don't believe we have access to do that. You can ask the infra folks to do that. Probably best to ask on the ML. | 14:07 |
| cgoncalves | smcginnis, I asked infra first. they redirected me to here :) | 14:11 |
| hberaud | +1 for the ML approach to centralize the debat | 14:11 |
| clarkb | I don't think we need the ML | 14:12 |
| *** ianychoi_ is now known as ianychoi | 14:12 | |
| clarkb | in the past the release team has done branch cleanups. We have had to deputize a release team member to do this as a temporary gerrit admin | 14:12 |
| clarkb | I don't mind doing the deletions as part of the infra team. The concern is more that queens in particular has an eol tag then a bunch of commits after that | 14:13 |
| clarkb | the release team needs to weigh in on how we want to untangle the EOL'd but not EOL'd branches then we can delete branches for you | 14:13 |
| clarkb | my concern with bringing this up with the release team is we seem to have a gap somewhere where we can tag an eol tag but then keep committing to a branch | 14:13 |
| hberaud | clarkb: I'm not too familiar with the eol process I suppose teams need to agree too, as they propose to move eol on their own, isn't? | 14:17 |
| hberaud | example https://review.opendev.org/#/c/726392/ | 14:17 |
| jrosser | how does it relate to the dates on here? https://releases.openstack.org/ | 14:17 |
| clarkb | maybe? it all changed with the em process and I think that is where the "bug" was introduced. Previously the release team just did it for everoyne on a scheduled day | 14:17 |
| *** elod has quit IRC | 14:17 | |
| hberaud | clarkb: ack I see | 14:17 |
| cgoncalves | hberaud, the octavia team proposed EOL: https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/releases+octavia+eol | 14:18 |
| hberaud | clarkb: then I need to rewind on the em process | 14:18 |
| clarkb | ya it seems like we're allowing projects to EOL but then not doing any branch cleanup coordination anymore | 14:18 |
| clarkb | instead of thinking of this as a specific octavia problem, we should look through which things we've eol'd but not cleaned up. Check if we need new tags. Then once audited and tagged as necessary do the branch removals | 14:19 |
| *** elod has joined #openstack-release | 14:19 | |
| hberaud | I need to take a look to the process first to get the details but maybe one approach could be something like 1. team ask for eol 2. release team validate and ask to infra to delete branches 3. infra trigger the delete | 14:20 |
| hberaud | maybe we could define some related schedule in our cycle process | 14:20 |
| hberaud | to avoid to forget this part | 14:21 |
| clarkb | another option is to not delete the branches, but that is probably a bigger discussion | 14:21 |
| cgoncalves | clarkb, the ask for deleting branches is so that we can remove old zuul jobs. for example, see https://review.opendev.org/#/c/758725/ | 14:22 |
| hberaud | clarkb: possibly some could try to push patches against these branches, isn't? I mean the delete avoid confusing | 14:22 |
| clarkb | yes, there are good reasons to delete the branches, but its not our only option. We could probably do a process similar to repo retirement on EOL'd branches and just commit a "this is EOL Readme" and remove everything else | 14:23 |
| hberaud | clarkb: ah yes I see | 14:23 |
| noonedeadpunk | um, I'm not really sure how deployment project should handle this indeed | 14:23 |
| noonedeadpunk | then I guess we should drop branches for everything at once? | 14:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | and say that release is eol overall? | 14:24 |
| hberaud | this is one option | 14:24 |
| jrosser | this is specifically why i ask about the dates given here for EOL - are they correct and up to date? https://releases.openstack.org/ | 14:25 |
| *** armstrong has joined #openstack-release | 14:25 | |
| clarkb | jrosser: sort of, it all chagned with the switch to extended maintenance. That is why you don't see "newer" branches as EOL | 14:25 |
| hberaud | jrosser: I guess yes | 14:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | because in eol ing specific project I have no idea how we should handle this tbh.... | 14:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | as eventually specific project branch is dropped, our CI just stucks | 14:26 |
| clarkb | I believe the new policy shift was to give more control to projects for when they couldn't keep the branches alive anymore | 14:26 |
| clarkb | octavia doing eol of queens is therefore fine, we just missed the piece of cleaning up branches (and seems we missed that for puppet-* too) | 14:27 |
| clarkb | I think it would be good to take a moment to figure out which things have asserted they are eol, check if tags need to be added, then finish the cleanup fromthere. | 14:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | so this kind of means that in case one single project goes eol before release overall goes to eol - all deployment projects should go to eol as well? | 14:28 |
| clarkb | or the deployment should start deploying from the eol tag | 14:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | ah, ok, so instead of branch there will be a tag? | 14:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | sorry I missed that part I guess | 14:28 |
| clarkb | yes, I think the eol tagging is still happening, its the branch deletion after that that is not | 14:29 |
| cgoncalves | https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#end-of-life | 14:29 |
| hberaud | clarkb, noonedeadpunk: I added this point to our meeting agenda https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/wallaby-relmgt-tracking | 14:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | should be there any ML to release regarding eol of the projects? | 14:29 |
| hberaud | I thinkit could be worth to discuss this point during our meeting to ensure that everybody with a full history of that point are there | 14:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | or any other means of comunication? I mean that would be really awesome so somehow get this really important info without need to read every single ml topic | 14:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | sure, agreed | 14:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | thanks hberaud | 14:31 |
| hberaud | noonedeadpunk, cgoncalves, clarkb do not hesitate to add bullets that seems important for you (R-25 related meeting agenda) if you think they are missing => https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/wallaby-relmgt-tracking | 14:35 |
| elod | hi, about EM (and EOL) the original discussion covered in this resolution: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20180301-stable-branch-eol.html | 14:36 |
| hberaud | thanks for brough this topic to our attention | 14:36 |
| hberaud | elod: awesome thanks | 14:36 |
| hberaud | s/brough/brought/ | 14:37 |
| elod | If I understand correctly the origin of the discussion is some patch that were merged after the EOL. Is that the case? | 14:41 |
| elod | In that case is that possible to make zuul vote somehow -2 in a case where there's an EOL tag already on the branch of the given project? | 14:42 |
| hberaud | cgoncalves: ^^^ | 14:42 |
| clarkb | elod: yes, cgoncalves has requested that we delete a branch, but the eol tag for that branch is no longer current. I don't want to delete a stable branch in that state without coordination from the release team | 14:42 |
| clarkb | elod: not really no. tags and branches aren't directly mappable so that would get dangerous and likely result in false positive -2s | 14:43 |
| clarkb | er false negatives? | 14:43 |
| cgoncalves | elod, not quite. we want to remove old job definitions in octavia-tempest-plugin used in queens and rocky but Zuul returns a syntax error that stable/queens is still using that job def: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/758725/ | 14:43 |
| elod | cgoncalves: when we edited the EOL steps ( https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#end-of-life ) we discussed, that ONLY those jobs should be deleted which are defined somewhere else, not in the given project, | 14:45 |
| elod | but maybe this is false, | 14:46 |
| elod | as the deletion does not happen instantly, | 14:46 |
| elod | which causes similar issue, like yours | 14:46 |
| clarkb | well deletion hasn't happened at all I think beacuse we've not properly figured out how to make those requests in the new system | 14:46 |
| clarkb | I expect it could be made to be close enough to instant if we sort that out | 14:47 |
| elod | so maybe for a first step we should add another step between 2 and 3 to remove the zuul jobs in the repo, too | 14:47 |
| elod | clarkb: yes, sorry for my wording :) yes, if we keep track of everything correctly, then with the 4th step everything should be fine ( "4. After the branch is tagged with $series-eol, request the infra team to delete the branch." ) | 14:49 |
| elod | I understand that these deletion request were not sent, | 14:49 |
| elod | or simply lost in the noise | 14:50 |
| clarkb | I noted on the etherpad that I think it would be good for the delete requests to come from the release team after the release team has confirmed ti is safe/ready to do so | 14:51 |
| elod | anyway, maybe a safety solution would be to remove .zuul.yaml (and similar things) from the repo, before tagging | 14:51 |
| clarkb | I think that is a key detail we're missing because we've gotten a few of these after the fact requests and for most of them we've had to do cleanups first | 14:51 |
| elod | clarkb: ++ | 14:51 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 14:51 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-release | 14:52 | |
| smcginnis | clarkb: The release team does not have permissions to delete branches. With the EOL patches that have come through since EM, I've usually reminded the teams requesting those that they need to follow through with someone in infra (usually it's been fungi) to have the branch deleted after we've tagged eol. | 14:54 |
| fungi | yeah, in the past we've authorised a release manager or stable branch manager to tag and delete eol branches in bulk | 14:55 |
| clarkb | smcginnis: ya, I think the problem is the responsibility is falling on the project and they aren't doing the checks first | 14:55 |
| clarkb | they come to us we say x y z needs to be done then the deletion process ends there | 14:55 |
| smcginnis | It would be great if we can automate it with the tagging. That does seem a little risky though. | 14:55 |
| clarkb | I'm suggesting the release team should ensure everything is prepped then make the request directly | 14:55 |
| fungi | when we stopped coordinating eol, the responsibility has ended up falling on the gerrit admins to do a bunch of one-off cleanups rather than having everyone's old branches deleted in bulk | 14:56 |
| clarkb | once we've got the gerrit upgrade sorted, figuring out how to delegate branch deletion more safely is likely a good thing to work upstream on | 14:59 |
| clarkb | in particular you currently need force push perms or project ownership to do it | 14:59 |
| clarkb | both of which imply significanlty more access than removign a single branch | 14:59 |
| elod | smcginnis: automation would be good, but if we consider it risky, maybe just some kind of an automated 'notification' could be sent? (but I don't know how o:)) | 15:02 |
| smcginnis | Maybe a periodic job that checks for foo-eol tags and the presence of stable/foo branches... | 15:03 |
| hberaud | good idea | 15:03 |
| otherwiseguy | smcginnis: just noticed that it looks like everything ran for https://review.opendev.org/#/c/758487/ but it still says Needs Verified Label? | 15:06 |
| smcginnis | otherwiseguy: It's not required. Sometime the job has issues, for whatever reason. It's really just to help the release team know when a PTL has ack'd the release, but we can also look at the list-changes job logs to see who the PTL and liaison(s) are and can manually check that they've ack'd. | 15:07 |
| smcginnis | Oh, I see that was approved on the 15th. | 15:07 |
| smcginnis | I wonder if that got lost in a zuul restart or something. | 15:07 |
| smcginnis | And it's a requirements patch, not a release. | 15:08 |
| smcginnis | We'll see if a recheck gets it going. | 15:08 |
| otherwiseguy | yeah, looks like it just kinda fell off the map in the middle of gate run. | 15:08 |
| otherwiseguy | smcginnis: ok, thanks! | 15:08 |
| smcginnis | We'll see if this works. If not, we can dig into logs and see what's going on. | 15:09 |
| openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/releases master: init-series: Skip unrelease comment for trailing https://review.opendev.org/758829 | 15:39 |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 15:55 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-release | 15:59 | |
| *** marios has quit IRC | 16:01 | |
| *** prometheanfire has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 16:12 | |
| *** prometheanfire has joined #openstack-release | 16:14 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: New bugfix release for pbr. https://review.opendev.org/758804 | 16:15 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Release octavia 6.1.0 and 5.0.3 https://review.opendev.org/758606 | 16:21 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: New bugfix release for oslo.messaging. https://review.opendev.org/758799 | 16:21 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Adding a new tools to search topic on the ML https://review.opendev.org/755362 | 16:25 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: Allow to consume projects without the openstack prefix https://review.opendev.org/756235 | 16:25 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: reminder lighten up for QA releases https://review.opendev.org/755840 | 16:30 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: R-3 Tagging cwi branchless deliverables (tempest-plugin) https://review.opendev.org/756236 | 16:30 |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 16:43 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:54 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 18:03 | |
| *** sboyron has quit IRC | 18:12 | |
| *** priteau has quit IRC | 18:22 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 18:24 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:35 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-release | 18:39 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-release | 19:35 | |
| *** suryasingh has quit IRC | 19:50 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| *** weshay has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-release | 20:14 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jose Luis Franco proposed openstack/releases master: Update release and branch to Victoria for tripleo-upgrade. https://review.opendev.org/758862 | 20:51 |
| *** ianw has quit IRC | 21:13 | |
| *** ianw has joined #openstack-release | 21:15 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: sahara: tag ocata as EOL https://review.opendev.org/756701 | 21:16 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/releases master: sahara: tag pike as EOL https://review.opendev.org/756702 | 21:16 |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| *** armstrong has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-release | 21:35 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:41 | |
| *** vishalmanchanda has quit IRC | 21:55 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-release | 22:05 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!