| *** tosky_ is now known as tosky | 09:33 | |
| *** diablo_rojo_phone is now known as Guest5496 | 09:51 | |
| *** ralonsoh_ is now known as ralonsoh | 09:58 | |
| *** Guest5496 is now known as diablo_rojo_phone | 10:40 | |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: Release python-vitrageclient for Epoxy-2 milestone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938598 | 13:35 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: Release python-blazarclient for Epoxy-2 milestone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938588 | 13:35 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: Release sushy for Epoxy-2 milestone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938602 | 13:42 |
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/releases master: Release oslo.metrics for Epoxy-2 milestone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938583 | 13:49 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: Release python-ironicclient for Epoxy-2 milestone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938590 | 13:51 |
| elodilles | reminder: weekly meeting in ~5 mins | 13:54 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: Release python-heatclient for Epoxy-2 milestone https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938589 | 13:56 |
| elodilles | #startmeeting releaseteam | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Fri Jan 10 14:00:36 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is elodilles. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' | 14:00 |
| elodilles | Ping list: release-team | 14:00 |
| elodilles | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/epoxy-relmgt-tracking | 14:00 |
| armstrong | o/ | 14:00 |
| elodilles | o/ | 14:01 |
| ttx | o/ | 14:01 |
| elodilles | so we are around line 184 | 14:03 |
| elodilles | let's start then | 14:04 |
| elodilles | #topic Review task completion | 14:04 |
| elodilles | 1st task was: | 14:04 |
| elodilles | 'Generate a list of all cycle-with-intermediary libraries which did not release since the YYYY-MM-DD date of milestone-1. (elod)' | 14:04 |
| elodilles | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:epoxy-milestone-2 | 14:04 |
| elodilles | a bit less than 3rd part of them are missing reviews, | 14:05 |
| elodilles | some still waits for update or further team member reviews | 14:06 |
| elodilles | or 2nd +2s | 14:06 |
| elodilles | I'll double check the ones that has no response from team after the meeting and I guess we can release them if there's no issue with them | 14:07 |
| armstrong | Ok I will take a look and review some | 14:07 |
| elodilles | armstrong: thanks o/ | 14:08 |
| elodilles | there is a follow-up task for this in next weeks tasks, so this should be good | 14:09 |
| elodilles | oh one question though: | 14:09 |
| elodilles | i've seen a release patch for python-freezerclient | 14:09 |
| elodilles | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938780 | 14:09 |
| elodilles | commented on it ^^^ | 14:09 |
| elodilles | is freezer officially back in this cycle? | 14:10 |
| fungi | it's still listed as inactive | 14:10 |
| elodilles | because in that case i think all its deliverables should be added | 14:10 |
| fungi | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects | 14:10 |
| * ttx looks up log | 14:10 | |
| elodilles | so either we shouldn't add or add all necessary freezer deliverables | 14:11 |
| ttx | See https://meetings.opendev.org/irclogs/%23openstack-release/%23openstack-release.2025-01-06.log.html | 14:11 |
| ttx | So it's a bit uncertain | 14:12 |
| elodilles | thanks for the link | 14:13 |
| elodilles | then the question is: should we add freezer deliverables, or just leave it to freezer folks to tag the releases manually (if we are not sure about its active state) | 14:13 |
| elodilles | opinions? | 14:14 |
| fungi | probably the latter unless/until the tc takes it out of inactive state? | 14:14 |
| ttx | I think we give noonedeadpunk a bit more time to decide if it will be revived | 14:15 |
| ttx | But yes we need closure on this well before milestone-3 | 14:15 |
| elodilles | +1 | 14:15 |
| fungi | yeah, i mean, this is about the point in the cycle where if the tc hasn't decided then it's presumably deferred until next cycle, logistically | 14:16 |
| elodilles | yepp | 14:17 |
| fungi | this week was their official deadline according to the schedule | 14:17 |
| elodilles | but the release can be done anyway, it just won't show up in the coordinated release | 14:18 |
| fungi | right | 14:18 |
| elodilles | anyway, i'm adding a topic regarding this to next week's meeting, for a follow up | 14:19 |
| elodilles | OK, move on then | 14:20 |
| elodilles | 2nd task was: 'To catch if there are acl issues in newly created repositories, run tools/aclissues.py (ttx)' | 14:20 |
| elodilles | openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin (Quality Assurance) in openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin.config | 14:21 |
| ttx | I ran the check and spotted one glitch | 14:21 |
| ttx | and proposed the project-config fix for it | 14:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | fwiw, I've pushed freezer client patch yesterday | 14:21 |
| ttx | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/938887 | 14:21 |
| elodilles | this one i guess: | 14:21 |
| elodilles | ^^^ | 14:21 |
| ttx | so we are all set | 14:22 |
| elodilles | noonedeadpunk: i've seen it and commented on it | 14:23 |
| noonedeadpunk | aha, ok, let me check then :) | 14:23 |
| elodilles | noonedeadpunk: feel free to ping us anytime to discuss the thing if needed | 14:23 |
| noonedeadpunk | elodilles: so I feel it being like a chicken-egg situation right now | 14:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | for freezer to become active - a TC resolution should be made | 14:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | but it's already a deadline for clients, and if client is not gonna be released - TC will point to absent release for lcient | 14:25 |
| elodilles | noonedeadpunk: i think we are happy to add the deliverables (all of them at once) to deliverables/epoxy if you/TC ACKs they are ready to be part of 2025.1 Epoxy | 14:25 |
| fungi | the tc tells the release managers which projects will be included in the coordinated release | 14:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, so basically it should be TC resolution first to state that project is active... | 14:26 |
| ttx | yeah, and the sooner we know the better :) | 14:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | I just think I saw some different prespective, that a release could be a flag to TC... but I could misunderstood | 14:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | so right now CI is green, though a work is ongoing for some bigger re-factoring of the service | 14:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | (which potentially will be ready only by 2025.2) | 14:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok. then I'll go and propose patch to governance I guess | 14:28 |
| elodilles | noonedeadpunk: as I said some line above, if you are not that sure that freezer can be part of 2025.1, then there is the option to manually release the deliverables | 14:28 |
| fungi | yes, the projects' deliverables can presumably have releases this cycle, even if they're not officially included as part of the coordinated 2025.1/epoxy release | 14:29 |
| fungi | being inactive doesn't necessarily block release requests for those deliverables | 14:29 |
| elodilles | tagging rights need to be granted for a freezer core, and the tagging will trigger the release jobs. the releases will happen, but the deliverables won't be listed under 2025.1 Epoxy | 14:29 |
| fungi | or manual releasing like that i guess, right | 14:30 |
| elodilles | anyway, the sooner we have a more clear view / decision, is the better :) we don't have to decide on this meeting i guess :) | 14:31 |
| elodilles | so let's move on now - noonedeadpunk feel free to ping us any time next week if you have any further question | 14:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 14:32 |
| elodilles | ttx: about whitebox-tempest-plugin | 14:32 |
| elodilles | is that added to releases repository somewhere? | 14:32 |
| elodilles | ir will that be the next step to add? | 14:33 |
| ttx | it was already there | 14:33 |
| elodilles | hmmm. i don't find it | 14:33 |
| ttx | in _independent? | 14:34 |
| elodilles | ah, there it is | 14:34 |
| elodilles | sorry then, then all good | 14:34 |
| elodilles | OK, then this task is also covered | 14:35 |
| elodilles | well, the topic as well | 14:36 |
| elodilles | so next topic: | 14:36 |
| elodilles | #topic Assign R-11 week tasks | 14:36 |
| elodilles | ttx: could you chair next week's meeting? | 14:36 |
| ttx | yes | 14:37 |
| elodilles | i've added my name to the release cycle schedule planning task, but feel free to hijack it if you have already some timeplan in your mind o:) | 14:38 |
| elodilles | ttx: thanks o/ | 14:38 |
| ttx | was wondering if we have covered the "OpenStackSDK, Monasca and Freezer" task from this week | 14:38 |
| ttx | We discussed Freezer... | 14:38 |
| ttx | so maybe we need to push it back to next week? | 14:38 |
| elodilles | ttx: oh sorry | 14:39 |
| elodilles | #undo | 14:39 |
| opendevmeet | Removing item from minutes: #topic Assign R-11 week tasks | 14:39 |
| elodilles | missed it... | 14:39 |
| elodilles | so: | 14:39 |
| elodilles | 'Chase OpenStackSDK, Monasca and Freezer PTLs re: deliverables defined in governance but not in deliverable files (see above)' | 14:39 |
| ttx | OpenStackSDK is kind of covered with the recent addition of codegenerator, openapi | 14:40 |
| ttx | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938668 | 14:40 |
| ttx | That leaves Monasca | 14:40 |
| ttx | which I think is about to be removed | 14:41 |
| elodilles | you mean from project-config repository, right? | 14:41 |
| ttx | From governance. we should probably add a check in a future week that it's been indeed cleaned up | 14:41 |
| ttx | I'll add it to a future week. | 14:42 |
| elodilles | ttx: ACK, thanks. | 14:42 |
| elodilles | I can prepare a patch for that if needed | 14:42 |
| fungi | i haven't seen changes yet to retire the monasca deliverables, but i do expect they're on the way soon yes | 14:42 |
| elodilles | if you haven't done yet | 14:43 |
| ttx | I think it's a decision for the TC to make | 14:43 |
| ttx | OK I think we can move on :) | 14:43 |
| elodilles | ACK, thanks! | 14:44 |
| elodilles | #topic Assign R-11 week tasks | 14:44 |
| elodilles | all tasks taken | 14:44 |
| elodilles | #topic Review weekly countdown email | 14:45 |
| elodilles | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails | 14:45 |
| elodilles | please review ^^^ | 14:45 |
| ttx | lgtm | 14:47 |
| elodilles | ++ | 14:47 |
| elodilles | will send it after the meeting | 14:47 |
| elodilles | #topic Open Discussion | 14:48 |
| elodilles | anything to discuss? | 14:48 |
| fungi | #link https://review.opendev.org/938510 Allow pre-releases for independent deliverables | 14:49 |
| fungi | i pushed that up for debate, i don't feel super strongly that it's needed, but we had a case where it would be nice | 14:49 |
| elodilles | i've had only a quick glance at the patch, i don't know the history of this o:) | 14:49 |
| ttx | I commented... | 14:50 |
| fungi | in particular, pbr's use as a setuptools plugin (setup_requires/build-backend) makes it very hard to test from source in packages that use it | 14:50 |
| ttx | I just have a very hard time remembering, but that corner case definitely rings a bell | 14:50 |
| elodilles | i'm also OK to +2 this if needed. we can revert if it turns out as a bad decision o:) | 14:51 |
| fungi | ttx: was my answer in the comment yesterday what you were thinking of, or was it something else? | 14:51 |
| ttx | My memory is definitely associated with the ghost of Monty telling me we should really not allow that | 14:51 |
| ttx | ah, missed the answer, checking | 14:52 |
| fungi | basically, yes pre-releases were a problem before all our supported platforms had pip 1.4 or later (which probably wasn't until at least 2016) | 14:52 |
| elodilles | spooky :S | 14:52 |
| ttx | OK, that sounds like the thing I remember (wrong version being installed and all) | 14:53 |
| ttx | We should check that auto-proposal of global requirements constraints updates skip first, probably | 14:54 |
| fungi | but it did remind me, as i commented, that we probably want the constraints update proposal job to not run for pre-release versions (which may already be the case since the pre-release and release pipelines in zuul are separate) | 14:54 |
| fungi | yeah, looks like propose-update-constraints runs from the release pipeline specifically | 14:56 |
| fungi | #link https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=propose-update-constraints&skip=0 | 14:56 |
| fungi | oh! we do also run it in the pre-release pipeline | 14:57 |
| fungi | #link https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=propose-update-constraints&pipeline=pre-release&skip=0 | 14:57 |
| fungi | so it's possible we're already putting pre-releases of things in constraints, just not independent release libs | 14:58 |
| ttx | fungi: yes but cycle-with-rc things are usually not use in dependencies | 14:59 |
| ttx | used* | 14:59 |
| elodilles | beta/milestone release are used though | 14:59 |
| ttx | We require all libraries to be cycle-with-intermediary for that reason | 14:59 |
| fungi | i see pyeclib there, for example, which is in constraints | 14:59 |
| ttx | I remember a library using pre-release versioning was a bad idea. maybe no longer since 2016 | 15:00 |
| ttx | so that's why we forced all libs to be cycle-with-intermediary | 15:01 |
| fungi | i don't want to drag the meeting out, just bringing that change to everyone's attention, we can discuss async later | 15:01 |
| elodilles | fungi: ACK | 15:02 |
| elodilles | let's end the meeting then | 15:02 |
| elodilles | and we can discuss this further if needed after the meeting | 15:03 |
| elodilles | thanks everyone o/ | 15:03 |
| elodilles | #endmeeting | 15:03 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Fri Jan 10 15:03:20 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:03 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2025/releaseteam.2025-01-10-14.00.html | 15:03 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2025/releaseteam.2025-01-10-14.00.txt | 15:03 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2025/releaseteam.2025-01-10-14.00.log.html | 15:03 |
| fungi | skimming upper-constraints.txt history, we do have a number of projects in there where we auto-propose their rc versions | 15:08 |
| fungi | at least ceilometer and tap-as-a-service | 15:09 |
| fungi | i don't see any indication that the pyeclib 1.6.2rc1 tag ever made it into a review for requirements though | 15:10 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/releases master: [OpenStack-Ansible Roles] Transition 2023.1 Antelope to Unmaintained https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938952 | 17:56 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/releases master: [OpenStack-Ansible Roles] Transition 2023.1 Antelope to Unmaintained https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938952 | 18:23 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/releases master: [octavia-tempest-plugin] Tag 2023.1-last https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/933954 | 22:27 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/releases master: [neutron-tempest-plugin] Tag 2023.1-last https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/933944 | 22:29 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/releases master: [glance-tempest-plugin] Tag 2023.1-last https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/933958 | 22:32 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!