| fungi | just a heads up that even once zuul is up and running again, you should refrain from approving release requests until we get the (already reset) upload credentials for pypi updated in our zuul secrets in git | 02:57 |
|---|---|---|
| fungi | and even then, we'll want to start with a test release to make sure we matched them up correctly | 02:59 |
| -opendevstatus- NOTICE: Zuul is up and running again and should report back to Gerrit successfully. Changes can also merge if there are no other failures, but we expect that publication jobs like docs and tarballs updates will not work currently. | 05:03 | |
| *** ykarel_ is now known as ykarel | 05:36 | |
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/release-test master: Bump required python3 version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/release-test/+/972854 | 12:17 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/release-test master: Bump required python3 version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/release-test/+/972854 | 12:33 |
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/releases master: Test release with release-test 8.3.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/972859 | 12:36 |
| frickler | elodilles: ^^ note we still need to refresh a couple of secrets | 12:38 |
| elodilles | frickler: ACK, thanks for the info. please +2+A when things are ready ^^^ | 12:56 |
| elodilles | reminder: meeting in half an hour | 13:30 |
| elodilles | #startmeeting releaseteam | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Fri Jan 9 14:00:19 2026 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 elod | 14:00 |
| elodilles | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/gazpacho-relmgt-tracking | 14:00 |
| ttx | o/ | 14:00 |
| ttx | happy new year! | 14:00 |
| elodilles | o/ | 14:00 |
| elodilles | happy new year o/ | 14:00 |
| elodilles | we are @ line 164 | 14:01 |
| elodilles | the 1st half of the cycle has passed already :) | 14:02 |
| frickler | \o | 14:02 |
| elodilles | okay, let's start \o/ | 14:02 |
| elodilles | #topic Review past weeks task completion | 14:03 |
| elodilles | - On Monday: send weekly mail from R-13 !!! | 14:03 |
| elodilles | mail sent ^^^ | 14:03 |
| elodilles | - Ahead of MembershipFreeze, run governance_consistency.py. (elod) | 14:03 |
| elodilles | there were mostly the usual consistency issues | 14:04 |
| elodilles | except that i don't remember we had reports from cycle independent deliverables :-o | 14:04 |
| elodilles | but those were valid reports, anyway. so something got fixed o:) | 14:05 |
| elodilles | let's go into the details | 14:05 |
| elodilles | * Defined in governance but not in deliverable files (excluding deliverables from ['Infrastructure'] team(s) and deliverables specifically marked as being externally managed): | 14:06 |
| elodilles | barbican-ui | 14:06 |
| elodilles | this is one of the usual ones | 14:06 |
| ttx | yeah | 14:06 |
| elodilles | i've prepared a governance patch for this: | 14:06 |
| elodilles | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/972315 | 14:06 |
| elodilles | i think we have waited enough + there is not much activity, so my proposal is to ignore it in the future | 14:07 |
| elodilles | with the above governance patch ^^^ | 14:07 |
| frickler | +1 | 14:07 |
| ttx | yeah that's a nice solution | 14:07 |
| elodilles | no response yet from the team, but maybe we are not in the best time period (1st week of new year) | 14:08 |
| ttx | and might attract the TC's attention to those dead (or never born) deliverables | 14:08 |
| elodilles | ++ | 14:08 |
| elodilles | another similar case is: | 14:09 |
| elodilles | rbd-iscsi-client -> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/972316 | 14:09 |
| elodilles | and beyond these two, there is a fairly new deliverable on the list: | 14:10 |
| elodilles | grian-ui | 14:10 |
| elodilles | let me quote | 14:10 |
| elodilles | new project (added to governance in May, 2025) -> i've pinged the Telemetry team and they probably won't release it now, but needs to be revisited this in the next cycle | 14:10 |
| frickler | +1 to giving them a bit of time | 14:10 |
| ttx | agreed | 14:11 |
| elodilles | yepp. they explicitly said that the project is not ready to release this, but they want to continue with the deliverable and they will re-evaluate in the next cycle | 14:12 |
| elodilles | now the other part: | 14:12 |
| elodilles | * Defined in deliverable files but not in (active) governance: | 14:12 |
| elodilles | 4 deliverables, all under deliverables/_independent | 14:13 |
| elodilles | monasca-grafana-datasource, monasca-kibana-plugin, os-client-config, shade | 14:13 |
| elodilles | 3 of them are retired, and 1 is only deprecated, but might be that the retirement was just forgotten for it | 14:14 |
| elodilles | namely, os-client-config is the only deprecated one | 14:14 |
| elodilles | (maybe worth a ping to stephenfin ^^^ as he was dealing with the deprecation and the retirement of shade as well) | 14:15 |
| elodilles | ( https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/962197 ) | 14:15 |
| elodilles | to fix the above 4 inconsistency, here is my proposal: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/972321 | 14:16 |
| elodilles | it would be good to have an ACK from stephenfin o:) | 14:16 |
| elodilles | otherwise i think we are good with this task | 14:17 |
| frickler | ack, I'll +2 but defer the approval | 14:17 |
| elodilles | frickler: +1 | 14:17 |
| elodilles | thx | 14:17 |
| stephenfin | ack, yeah I think those can go now | 14:17 |
| stephenfin | left a +1 | 14:17 |
| frickler | also maybe gtema wants to have a look too as ptl | 14:17 |
| elodilles | stephenfin: cool, thanks \o/ | 14:17 |
| elodilles | okay, let's move on then to the next task: | 14:18 |
| gtema | done | 14:18 |
| elodilles | - Propose DNM changes on repositories where no patches merged recently to check that tests are still passing with the current set of dependencies (libraries, client libraries). (elod) | 14:18 |
| elodilles | gtema: thanks, too o/ | 14:18 |
| elodilles | https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:release-health-check-gazpacho | 14:18 |
| elodilles | fortunately, most of them have a working gate ^^^ | 14:19 |
| elodilles | only 2 failed, and my hope is that the errors were intermittent only | 14:19 |
| elodilles | that's all about this task | 14:20 |
| elodilles | - Generate a list of all cycle-with-intermediary libraries which did not release since the YYYY-MM-DD date of milestone-1. (elod) | 14:20 |
| elodilles | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:gazpacho-milestone-2 | 14:20 |
| elodilles | so. here we have the patches, ~half of them got response and we released them | 14:21 |
| elodilles | what should we do with the other half? | 14:22 |
| elodilles | i mean, i've added in the commit message, that we'll merge them after Thursday if no response... | 14:22 |
| elodilles | so probably we should not abandon this time | 14:22 |
| ttx | looking | 14:23 |
| elodilles | it's not yet Gazpacho-3 where we have to release the latest state anyway | 14:23 |
| elodilles | but Gazpacho-2 | 14:23 |
| elodilles | so probably we should review them and release, let's say, on Monday | 14:23 |
| frickler | we cannot merge them currently anyway. so we could ping oslo team once more, gtema for keystone+sdk and maybe some others, too? | 14:23 |
| ttx | did any of those do a gazpacho release already? | 14:23 |
| elodilles | frickler: and that :] | 14:23 |
| fungi | yeah, monday might be possible but i'd call it optimistic | 14:24 |
| ttx | Let's delay those patches until next week? | 14:24 |
| elodilles | fungi: ACK, thanks for the heads up | 14:24 |
| fungi | i'll coordinate to make sure we have a successful test release first just to be safe | 14:24 |
| fungi | i expect we'll be working through the weekend to replace a bunch of the now-invalidated secrets, but release tooling is high on my priority list to get working again of course | 14:25 |
| elodilles | #action review the remaining Gazpacho-2 patches and approve them if correct + zuul is ready for releasing | 14:25 |
| elodilles | is this OK? ^^^ | 14:25 |
| fungi | yep! | 14:25 |
| elodilles | #undo | 14:25 |
| opendevmeet | Removing item from minutes: #action review the remaining Gazpacho-2 patches and approve them if correct + zuul is ready for releasing | 14:25 |
| elodilles | well, let's add Monday... | 14:25 |
| elodilles | #action review the remaining Gazpacho-2 patches on Monday and approve them if correct + zuul is ready for releasing | 14:26 |
| elodilles | this? ^^^ | 14:26 |
| * fungi nods affirmatively | 14:26 | |
| * elodilles nods back :) | 14:26 | |
| frickler | +1 | 14:27 |
| ttx | +1 | 14:27 |
| elodilles | fungi: thanks for working on it, we'll be waiting for your signal then | 14:27 |
| elodilles | good. move on then to next task | 14:28 |
| elodilles | - Catch if there are acl issues in newly created repositories. (elod) | 14:28 |
| elodilles | (elod) empty output from tools/aclissues.py | 14:28 |
| elodilles | and that's all about tasks | 14:29 |
| elodilles | #topic Assign R-11 week tasks | 14:29 |
| elodilles | there's one unassigned task: 'Ensure that all new-release patches in requirements repository for the milestone-2 releases are merged.' is it OK to add 'all' to it, | 14:30 |
| elodilles | or do you want to have a single person on the task? | 14:30 |
| ttx | yeah, all is fine | 14:30 |
| elodilles | +1 | 14:31 |
| ttx | It's more so that we remember to review them at next meeting really :) | 14:31 |
| ttx | pretty sure there will be some left over | 14:31 |
| elodilles | yepp | 14:31 |
| elodilles | all taken then | 14:31 |
| elodilles | \o/ | 14:31 |
| elodilles | thanks | 14:31 |
| elodilles | #topic Review weekly countdown email | 14:31 |
| elodilles | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails | 14:31 |
| elodilles | please review ^^^ | 14:32 |
| elodilles | oh, one missing thing there: do you see any $other-upcoming-event to list in the mail? | 14:32 |
| ttx | how about we add "please review the late milestone-2 release patches at XXX if you have not done so already!" | 14:33 |
| ttx | like just after "we are past milestone-2" | 14:33 |
| elodilles | sounds good! | 14:33 |
| elodilles | thanks! | 14:34 |
| frickler | do we want to mention the board elections? | 14:34 |
| frickler | that's the only other event that comes to my mind | 14:35 |
| elodilles | we usually say this is more about release stuff to PTLs and liaisons o:) | 14:35 |
| ttx | yeah, we can remove that line | 14:35 |
| elodilles | but i can bend | 14:35 |
| ttx | frickler: you can add it | 14:35 |
| frickler | no, let's leave it as is, fine for me | 14:36 |
| elodilles | +1 | 14:36 |
| elodilles | OK, if nothing else, then i'll send it later today | 14:36 |
| elodilles | as is | 14:36 |
| elodilles | #topic Open Discussion | 14:37 |
| elodilles | oh, and there are some topics! | 14:37 |
| elodilles | - Updating review rules to account for limited resources (ttx) | 14:37 |
| elodilles | * Single release-core approval OK for trivial release requests with PTL+1 | 14:37 |
| elodilles | * OK to vote on release requests we generated | 14:37 |
| ttx | yes, so... | 14:38 |
| elodilles | unfortunately the 2nd bullet is already the case for many cycles now :/ | 14:38 |
| ttx | We have limited resources for review, so I think we can relax rules for trivial patches | 14:38 |
| ttx | Personally for example I'll have less time / more distraction so I could go for half a month without reviewing... things should not grind into a halt | 14:39 |
| ttx | so I propose: | 14:39 |
| ttx | - If a release request gets a PTL+1, then a single release core can approve them (it counts as another review, basically) | 14:40 |
| elodilles | +1 (i sadly approve :( | 14:40 |
| ttx | (obviously, if the patch is not trivial, has some complexity or has open questions, we should refrain from +2Aing it | 14:40 |
| elodilles | +1 sounds right | 14:41 |
| ttx | but if it is a basic patch and it's been reviewed by release liaison, it's safe enough) | 14:41 |
| elodilles | +1 | 14:41 |
| ttx | - For release requests we generate, it's ok for us to vote on them | 14:41 |
| frickler | +1, do we need to formalize this somehow? or is this meeting's log enough? | 14:41 |
| ttx | Those are usually auto-generated by some tool rather than authored anyway | 14:42 |
| frickler | ack | 14:42 |
| ttx | This would only apply to release requests | 14:42 |
| ttx | code changes would still require two pairs of eyes | 14:42 |
| ttx | and we should not self-approve them | 14:42 |
| ttx | but release requests which do not trigger questions... PTL+1 is ok, and self-approving after PTL+1 is ok | 14:43 |
| ttx | We should write it down in the relmgt-tracking doc to remember we actually agreed on that | 14:44 |
| ttx | I can add a line on it | 14:44 |
| ttx | and also log it here using #agreed | 14:44 |
| ttx | are both rules ok? | 14:44 |
| elodilles | OK, i had one question but you explained it as well. +1 from me | 14:44 |
| ttx | #agreed Single release-core approval OK for trivial release requests which got PTL+1 | 14:45 |
| elodilles | both sounds reasonable to me, unfortunately, we reached the point where we have to take this step | 14:45 |
| ttx | #agreed It's OK for a release-core to vote on trivial release requests they themselves generated | 14:46 |
| ttx | #info a "trivial" release request ais one that requests a new release of a deliverable and which did not trigger any complex question. Code changes should still require two release-core votes | 14:47 |
| frickler | +1 | 14:48 |
| ttx | This should not discourage us from recruiting and training a new release-core in the future, but given our recent past track record I'd rather not depend on that | 14:48 |
| elodilles | yep | 14:48 |
| ttx | that's all I wanted to discuss :) | 14:48 |
| elodilles | thanks for bringing this up and formulating the rules | 14:49 |
| elodilles | during the holiday i was also thinking to come up with this :/ | 14:50 |
| ttx | it just dawned on me that PTL+1 is already another pair of eyes on trivial patches | 14:50 |
| ttx | also nowadays (1) most patches are generated by tools which don;t make obvious mistakes and (2) our test suite catches 95% of issues really | 14:51 |
| elodilles | yepp | 14:51 |
| ttx | so I'd say we were probably overly cautious. It was good as a training wheels type mechanism... but when we are not actively mentoring... | 14:52 |
| fungi | i'll note that for infrastructure configuration changes i often single-core approve them if they're trivial and acknowledged by the affected project's leadership | 14:52 |
| ttx | yeah it's pretty similar | 14:52 |
| fungi | like, i don't want to go making acl changes to keystone unless the keystone ptl is onboard, but if it passes our linter and isn't something particularly novel, i'll just approve without waiting for a second core reviewer | 14:53 |
| elodilles | makes sense | 14:54 |
| ttx | I think that is all | 14:55 |
| elodilles | ACK, thanks | 14:56 |
| elodilles | if no other topics, then let's end the meeting | 14:56 |
| ttx | ++ | 14:56 |
| elodilles | thanks for participating! o/ | 14:56 |
| elodilles | #endmeeting | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Fri Jan 9 14:56:33 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2026/releaseteam.2026-01-09-14.00.html | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2026/releaseteam.2026-01-09-14.00.txt | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2026/releaseteam.2026-01-09-14.00.log.html | 14:56 |
| frickler | \o | 14:56 |
| elodilles | ahh, the 'agreed' items are not logged :( https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2026/releaseteam.2026-01-09-14.00.html | 14:57 |
| fungi | i think it might be #agree ? | 14:57 |
| fungi | but i really don't remember now | 14:58 |
| elodilles | me neither | 14:58 |
| fungi | would have to check the meetbot docs | 14:58 |
| elodilles | maybe should have grant co-chair right to ttx | 14:58 |
| elodilles | * I | 14:58 |
| elodilles | maybe I should have granted co-chair right to ttx | 14:59 |
| elodilles | (well, the log is there, only the summery page misses the list...) | 15:00 |
| ttx | ah, will copy them to relmgt-tracking doc | 15:01 |
| elodilles | thanks | 15:02 |
| elodilles | and sorry | 15:02 |
| fungi | ttx: any idea if you or other release team members have access to the openstack-mirroring account on github.com? we need to generate new ssh and api keys for it, originally added by you in https://review.opendev.org/718479 six years ago | 19:11 |
| fungi | not a big deal if you don't, i have access to remove its privileges and create a new replacement account for it, worst case | 19:13 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!