| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 00:40 | |
| fungi | 174074 has finally merged (the clouds were not with us this day), so i'm just waiting for puppet to get it applied on the gerrit server | 00:46 |
|---|---|---|
| notmyname | ttx: dhellmann: FYI, swift will need an RC2. some stuff discovered in testing today. working on patches. I want to talk either (my) tonight or tomorrow moring on what the right schedule for that is | 00:52 |
| * notmyname goes on kid duty at home | 00:53 | |
| fungi | 174074 is live on gerrit now, stable/kilo branches properly locked down to release teams | 01:19 |
| *** jogo has quit IRC | 01:24 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 01:40 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 01:47 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 02:48 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 02:53 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 05:45 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 05:50 | |
| ttx | notmyname: unless the bug creates data-loss or catastrophic failure, I'd rather have the RC1 survive a little more so that we potentially discover other issues in it. Like target a RC2 for Monday/Tuesday next week | 06:32 |
| notmyname | ttx: oh, yes. | 06:32 |
| notmyname | ttx: thanks for the clarification on date. that's what I was looking for | 06:33 |
| ttx | cheers | 06:33 |
| notmyname | ttx: but, yes, we will need one | 06:33 |
| ttx | noted | 06:34 |
| ttx | dhellmann: having a look, but EDGE data link seems to struggle with Gerrit page loading | 06:37 |
| notmyname | ttx: I think I overheard that other projects were doing rc2s on monday? | 06:37 |
| notmyname | does it make it easier to do ours then too? | 06:38 |
| ttx | notmyname: not necessarily. Some of them will happen earlier and some later. I prefer to stagger them based on RC1 release date | 06:38 |
| notmyname | ok | 06:38 |
| ttx | but yeah, I epxect a pack of them around Monday | 06:38 |
| notmyname | ttx: note that one of the issues we'd like to resolve is a FFE for global requirements to bump pyeclib. we've submitted patches and I've sent a message to the ML | 06:40 |
| ttx | ack | 06:40 |
| notmyname | I'm not sure what the process is on that, but any help you can give is appreciated | 06:40 |
| ttx | we usually try to measure the pain for packagers at this point | 06:41 |
| ttx | traveling for meetings today and tomorrow so on limited connectivity | 06:41 |
| ttx | sdague, fungi, jeblair: So... on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173842/ it looks like we have the same exact failure with everything on stable/* compared to when we had proposed/* | 06:44 |
| ttx | I see the same errors | 06:45 |
| *** dansmith has quit IRC | 07:04 | |
| *** dansmith has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 07:08 | |
| *** dansmith is now known as Guest67672 | 07:08 | |
| *** zz_johnthetubagu is now known as johnthetubaguy | 08:29 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 08:40 | |
| *** mestery_ has quit IRC | 08:43 | |
| ttx | or maybe that's not the same error... arh can't do anything on this spotty wifi | 09:19 |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 09:19 | |
| ttx | sdague: would welcome your eagle eyes checking that the test at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173842/ does what it's supposed to do now that we switched everything to using "stable/kilo" | 09:20 |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 09:24 | |
| ttx | I see the same kind of errors but maybe those are expected | 09:27 |
| sdague | ttx: ok, just got my first cup of coffee, let me look | 09:41 |
| sdague | so https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173842/ is a stable/kilo proposed change | 09:42 |
| sdague | no, this looks good - http://logs.openstack.org/42/173842/1/check/check-tempest-dsvm-full/8b0b195/logs/devstack-gate-setup-workspace-new.txt.gz#_2015-04-15_22_50_15_463 trove in on stable/kilo | 09:43 |
| sdague | the clients are still maybe weird, right? | 09:43 |
| sdague | ok, so the thing to look for is the following 2 strings | 09:46 |
| sdague | actually, no... it's simpler | 09:47 |
| sdague | search "git_checkout" | 09:48 |
| sdague | that will show you the branches everything is set to | 09:48 |
| sdague | this looks right, I think the only thing that's maybe up for grabs is tempest-lib and a couple others | 09:49 |
| sdague | let me make a list | 09:49 |
| sdague | http://paste.openstack.org/show/204070/ | 09:50 |
| sdague | so sahara-dashboard seems like it should have a branch | 09:51 |
| sdague | I don't know about the ironic agent / libs | 09:51 |
| sdague | and tempest lib is still a ? | 09:51 |
| sdague | but the thing is, the fall back logic will just use master, so we can branch later on those if it's a problem | 09:52 |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 10:07 | |
| sdague | ttx: so https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173924 is going to be "fun" to unwind | 10:36 |
| sdague | and by fun, I mean *not fun at all* | 10:36 |
| sdague | all openstack libraries have to uncap their requirements and release simultaneously | 10:37 |
| sdague | this is one of those issues with libraries getting g-r syncs | 10:37 |
| sdague | which I don't think was anticipated | 10:37 |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 12:14 | |
| *** dims__ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 12:17 | |
| fungi | yeah, for the future we should probably branch the clients during requirements freeze and not cap master requirements entries for them? | 12:44 |
| fungi | a lot of the original discussion around it was to introduce the caps on requirements stable/kilo after the kilo release. the concern was not releasing with capped versions, but rather protecting the stable branch with caps once the release was over | 12:50 |
| fungi | however that does necessarily require client/library devs to not introduce breaking change releases during the rc period | 12:51 |
| fungi | so maybe something we can't bank on without taking away their tagging privileges temporarily | 12:51 |
| ttx | o/ | 12:51 |
| ttx | temporarily available | 12:51 |
| ttx | waiting for my contacts to show up for meeting, may drpo any moment | 12:52 |
| ttx | so we should probably not have capped deps in master before the branch | 12:52 |
| fungi | maybe. it seems like a lesson learned now, but we might find unexpected drawbacks with that plan next time | 12:53 |
| dhellmann | yeah, it may have been simpler to branch and then cap :-/ | 12:56 |
| dhellmann | ttx, fungi, sdague : do you know what the job "gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-src-python-heatclient-juno" is? that same pattern is showing up as a failure in a few places in the stable/kilo branches | 12:57 |
| dhellmann | ttx, fungi, sdague: is that the backwards-compatibility test that we don't need any more because we're capping requirements? | 12:58 |
| fungi | dhellmann: yeah, that's a backward-compatibility job to run master branch tip or changes proposed to master of heatclient against everything else from juno | 12:58 |
| fungi | from when we needed to make sure heatclient (and others) didn't break stable/juno because they didn't have stable/juno branches | 12:59 |
| dhellmann | right | 12:59 |
| dhellmann | so we should be able to turn that job off now, I think? | 13:00 |
| fungi | as we add stable branches to the clients/libraries, those .*-src-.*-(icehouse|juno) jobs should be removed | 13:00 |
| fungi | the idea is that things like clients that have to maintain compatible with the rest apis of older server releases should have functional testsuites which can be pointed at older release servers as needed to keep them backward-compatible in the ways we still care about (user-facing backward compatibility) | 13:01 |
| dhellmann | right, that's what I thought. Do you know if anyone is working on those functional tests? | 13:02 |
| fungi | several of the clients already have them | 13:02 |
| sdague | dhellmann: it's all very project specific | 13:02 |
| sdague | ttx: so... the root issue, capping requirements in libraries is probably *always* the wrong thing to do | 13:02 |
| dhellmann | so right now we have a bunch of clients that can't land patches in their kilo branches because those test jobs fail | 13:03 |
| dhellmann | it's not clear if we should spend a bunch of time debugging that, or just remove the test jobs | 13:03 |
| dhellmann | or at least turn them off for the branch | 13:03 |
| sdague | dhellmann: yeh, all the stable compat jobs are obsolete if the client in question has stable branches | 13:03 |
| dhellmann | sdague: maybe we should make the requirements update job "smarter"? have it look for a flag in the repo or the project list or something? | 13:04 |
| sdague | I feel like we keep trying to make things smarter one patch at a time, and they just wedge in new ways | 13:04 |
| dhellmann | ok, I'll throw together a patch to remove the jobs from the libraries that are failing right now | 13:04 |
| sdague | I think realistically, g-r only should apply to top level projects, delete most of what's in projects.txt | 13:05 |
| dhellmann | sdague: well, if we don't make that tool smarter we have to remember not to approve requirements updates to libs in stable branches, right? | 13:05 |
| dhellmann | hmm, that's likely to lead to competing requirements for second-level dependencies, isn't it? | 13:05 |
| sdague | dhellmann: no worse than external libraries | 13:06 |
| sdague | I think the only thing we should probably enforce on libraries in their requirements is they can't cap anything | 13:06 |
| dhellmann | how do we resolve the conflict when oslo.db wants a newer sqlalchemy than is in the global requirements list? | 13:06 |
| dhellmann | except hacking, and whatever other special cases we have like that | 13:07 |
| sdague | I guess the enforcement would really be "libraries must be wider than gr, and not cap" | 13:08 |
| sdague | dhellmann: looking at the logs on ttx's attempt to uncap master | 13:09 |
| sdague | I think we need to release versions of all libraries that had caps to uncapped versions all at the same time | 13:09 |
| dhellmann | ok, I can do that in a bit -- I have to drive in to atlanta today | 13:09 |
| sdague | dhellmann: well, you can't without fungi I don't think | 13:09 |
| sdague | because gr sync | 13:09 |
| sdague | and requirements check won't let you | 13:10 |
| dhellmann | we can remove the libs from the project list for a little while today -- you and I can approve that | 13:10 |
| sdague | dhellmann: this is going to include all the clients as well | 13:10 |
| dhellmann | ok | 13:11 |
| dhellmann | sdague: can you tl;dr why we need versions without caps? | 13:12 |
| sdague | dhellmann: http://logs.openstack.org/24/173924/1/check/check-tempest-dsvm-full/6c09e06/logs/devstacklog.txt.gz#_2015-04-15_23_02_58_575 | 13:13 |
| dhellmann | sdague: https://review.openstack.org/174371 | 13:13 |
| sdague | because lifting the cap for oslo.config brings in a version of oslo.config that many things using oslo config wedge on | 13:14 |
| dhellmann | sdague: ah, because we released libs while there were caps in place :-/ | 13:14 |
| sdague | dhellmann: those are the wrong jobs | 13:14 |
| dhellmann | ugh | 13:14 |
| sdague | stable-compat-jobs | 13:14 |
| dhellmann | ah, I looked for the "neutron-src" part and thought that was the right macro | 13:15 |
| dhellmann | reworking... | 13:15 |
| dhellmann | sdague: updated | 13:22 |
| fungi | should we also remove the definition of that job template from jenkins/jobs/tempest-jobs.yaml and drop all its instantiations from jenkins/jobs/projects.yaml or save that cleanup for later? | 13:28 |
| fungi | if there's some desire to keep it around for now, i'll go ahead and approve 174371 as-is | 13:29 |
| fungi | dhellmann: sdague: ^ ? | 13:31 |
| sdague | fungi: so, I don't know if other things want to keep it | 13:32 |
| sdague | I'd say move forward for now, and we can clean up things later | 13:32 |
| fungi | dhellmann: aha, i think saharaclient has it added directly to their project entry in layout.yaml rather than using a project-template | 13:34 |
| fungi | ahh, nope they just have a stale override for it in the jobs list | 13:36 |
| fungi | it was apparently set nonvoting for them | 13:36 |
| fungi | we can clean that up later too | 13:36 |
| dhellmann | sdague, fungi : here's the patch to drop libraries from requirements updates so we can change their requirements and do releases: https://review.openstack.org/174383 | 13:36 |
| *** Guest67672 is now known as dansmith | 13:36 | |
| *** dansmith is now known as Guest14453 | 13:37 | |
| dhellmann | I'm going to throw my laptop in my bag and head to the city. I should be back online in a couple of hours. If you want to shepherd that patch through, and start submitting the changes to the library requirements files, I think I can use my release team powers to approve them when I'm back online | 13:37 |
| dhellmann | and if not then we'll hassle the ptls to do it | 13:38 |
| fungi | i think that's going to require some extra care. there are possibly a lot of places where we're installing dependencies before the things depending on them, and pinning library dependencies in global-requirements because they're broken versions of things | 13:38 |
| fungi | so if we just stop syncing requirements to those projects now, we're probably going to wind up in a world of hurt as they start changing them, until we have a plan for making sure jobs always install the things with specific constraints before things with none | 13:39 |
| dhellmann | fungi: yeah, I think we can limit it to removing caps from libs we manage | 13:39 |
| dhellmann | and I intend them to only be out of sync until we get the releases done, and then we'll revert this patch | 13:39 |
| fungi | oh, got it | 13:40 |
| dhellmann | of course if you have another option, I'm open to suggestions, this was just a way to achieve the releases without asking you to ninja merge a bunch of requirements changes to the libs :-) | 13:40 |
| fungi | nah, this gives us a good test too | 13:40 |
| fungi | brb | 13:41 |
| * dhellmann disconnects for his commute | 13:41 | |
| *** Guest14453 is now known as dansmith_ | 13:43 | |
| sdague | dhellmann: so, I'm chasing a release critical nova bug atm, might be limitted in response | 13:44 |
| *** dansmith_ is now known as dansmith | 13:58 | |
| jeblair | i wonder if, since the immediate problem we were working on yesterday is past, maybe we could move some of this discussion back to #openstack-infra? | 14:07 |
| jeblair | i think there's quite a bit here that it would have been useful for other people to see, especially with respect to project-config changes, etc... | 14:08 |
| fungi | agreec | 14:09 |
| fungi | agreed too | 14:09 |
| *** bswartz has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 14:46 | |
| *** nikhil_k is now known as flaper87-2 | 14:49 | |
| *** flaper87-2 is now known as nikhil_k | 14:50 | |
| bswartz | ttx: ping | 14:52 |
| nikhil_k | ttx: hi | 14:55 |
| bswartz | ttx: you answered my main question with your ML post, and so far we have no RC potential bugs, so it's possible that we don't need to meet today | 14:56 |
| nikhil_k | ttx: Just wated to give a quick update on RCs. There are a few reviews/bugs blocking us on that. I've listed them in https://trello.com/c/CoZ9g13d/45-kilo-rc2 . We can sync on Tuesday or earlier if you need more info. | 14:56 |
| redrobot | ttx o/ | 15:07 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 15:32 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 15:35 | |
| ttx | bswartz, redrobot: I'm stuck in a meeting | 15:38 |
| ttx | so we'll skip | 15:38 |
| ttx | redrobot: are you getting closer to a RC1 ? | 15:38 |
| bswartz | ttx: no worries, I am too | 15:38 |
| ttx | dhellmann: o/ how are things going ? | 15:42 |
| redrobot | ttx yep, all the stuff we want in is in review. I'm hoping RC1 will be ready by the end of the week. | 15:43 |
| ttx | redrobot: ok, just approve the open-liberty review and I'll make it happen | 15:48 |
| ttx | brb | 15:49 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 15:57 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 16:01 | |
| ttx | fungi, jeblair, sdague, dhellmann: Anything urgent you need me for ? I'll be at my hotel all evening and tomorrow morning and able to spend some time on this again | 16:09 |
| fungi | ttx: not that i'm aware, and dhellmann's https://review.openstack.org/174383 seems to pass jenkins so i'm approving | 16:10 |
| fungi | dhellmann: i'll go ahead and propose a wip revert for that too | 16:11 |
| fungi | also moving this conversation to #openstack-infra | 16:12 |
| ttx | ok | 16:13 |
| notmyname | ttx: re https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174171/ "sort out testing", what's the status. seems that from the ML email this morning, it's good? or is there more to do? | 16:23 |
| ttx | notmyname: bit more to do, especially on master to unfreeze it | 16:35 |
| notmyname | ok. is there something I can track from my side? | 16:35 |
| ttx | https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw | 16:37 |
| ttx | tracking status there ^ | 16:37 |
| ttx | basically currently stable/kilo is 75% good and master requirements still 0% good | 16:38 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 16:55 | |
| *** bswartz has quit IRC | 16:58 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 17:00 | |
| * dhellmann finally makes it back online | 17:36 | |
| dhellmann | fungi, ttx: ok, heading to infra | 17:36 |
| *** johnthetubaguy is now known as zz_johnthetubagu | 18:11 | |
| ttx | ohai | 19:40 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I'm still seeing requirements check failures in stable for some of the clients: https://jenkins02.openstack.org/job/gate-python-heatclient-requirements/128/console | 19:40 |
| ttx | dhellmann: so we have a number of libraries that want to do a point release in stable/kilo | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | ttx: no one should release *anything* until we have this sorted out | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | having more releases just makes this problem harder | 19:41 |
| ttx | right, tat is what I wanted to check | 19:41 |
| ttx | I kind of wanted them in before I cut RC2 so that requirements could be synced, BUT actually they should not trigger a requirements update | 19:42 |
| ttx | so they can land after RC2 | 19:42 |
| ttx | the only requirements update blocking a RC2 is swift's https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174171/ | 19:43 |
| dhellmann | it looks like we updated requirements in stable/kilo, and that's what's causing the problems with the lib repos | 19:43 |
| dhellmann | I'd like to get to the point where we can land changes in the stable/kilo branches before we make any other changes to anything | 19:43 |
| ttx | so we should still hold on htat one | 19:43 |
| dhellmann | because keeping up with what is working and what is broken is getting hairy | 19:43 |
| ttx | checking if pyeclib is used anywhere else bu swift | 19:44 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I thought we could land changes already (my point (1) in #infra) | 19:44 |
| dhellmann | not everywhere | 19:44 |
| dhellmann | the first couple of jobs on https://review.openstack.org/#/q/owner:doug-hellmann+branch:stable/kilo+is:open,n,z are still failing | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | patches, that is | 19:45 |
| ttx | ok, got it | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | heatclient's stable/kilo requirement list is out of date, so I think we can fix that | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | that may be the same problem everywhere | 19:45 |
| ttx | so the only RC2 blocked atm would be swift's | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | I rechecked https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174338/1 but zuul hasn't picked it up yet | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | ttx: fungi just said that he's restarting gerrit so we'll want to recheck again when it is back up | 19:46 |
| ttx | ok | 19:46 |
| fungi | yep, it's back up now | 19:46 |
| dhellmann | fungi: thanks | 19:47 |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: gerrit has been restarted to clear a problem with its event stream. any gerrit changes updated or approved between 19:14 and 19:46 utc will need to be rechecked or have their approval reapplied for zuul to pick them up | 19:47 | |
| ttx | nikhil_k, morganfainberg: we'll still have to wait a bit before cutting new client libs, stable/kilo branches still acting up | 19:50 |
| nikhil_k | ttx: gotcha, thanks. I think Stuart McLaren pointed out a good bug that we should get fixed in glanceclient and to avoid breaking Nova, Cinder, Ironic in some situations :) | 19:52 |
| ttx | nikhil_k: one question is.. should we bump the requirements as a result of that | 19:52 |
| nikhil_k | ah glad you saw that | 19:53 |
| nikhil_k | ttx: yes we should | 19:53 |
| ttx | depends how broken the current version is | 19:53 |
| nikhil_k | so if people use ssl | 19:53 |
| ttx | because the bump needs to propagate to release, which make it a costly thing | 19:53 |
| nikhil_k | Nova won't be able to boot VM | 19:53 |
| nikhil_k | Same goes for Cinder etc | 19:54 |
| ttx | nikhil_k: which versions are affected ? Is that a recent regression ? | 19:54 |
| nikhil_k | ttx: this might help https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172453/3 | 19:55 |
| ttx | thx | 19:55 |
| ttx | so anything since 0.16.1 | 19:55 |
| ttx | looks like people have been living with that for some time :) | 19:56 |
| ttx | ok, we'll consider a bump when we'll be able to make a new version of the lib | 19:56 |
| ttx | depending on when that is, may be cheap or costly | 19:56 |
| dhellmann | ttx: it looks like the bot-submitted requirements update to heatclient passed the requirements test, so that's progress | 20:00 |
| ttx | dhellmann: cool | 20:02 |
| ttx | notmyname: around? | 20:02 |
| ttx | dhellmann: hmm.. ;looks like we never pushed a .gitreview update for openstack/swift | 20:06 |
| ttx | I'll propose one now, good way to check we can land stuff there | 20:06 |
| notmyname | ttx: here | 20:07 |
| ttx | notmyname: was looking into the need/possibility to open a swift RC2 window | 20:07 |
| notmyname | what do you mean? | 20:07 |
| ttx | but then we can't land the requirements change just now so probably no hurry | 20:07 |
| ttx | i.e. list the patches we want in a RC2, land them and tag the result RC2 | 20:07 |
| notmyname | oh, you mean today instead of monday/tuesday? | 20:08 |
| ttx | yeah, but that was before I saw we didn't land the .gitreveiw bump there | 20:08 |
| ttx | we should start by that, to check that the branch is operational | 20:08 |
| notmyname | we don't have all the patches ready for an rc2 | 20:09 |
| ttx | notmyname: ok, so no hurry | 20:09 |
| ttx | come on hotel wifi | 20:10 |
| notmyname | .gitreview is a convenience. it's nice to have, but totally optional. what do you mean by making sure the branch is "operational"? | 20:10 |
| ttx | checking that the branch successfully runs tests using a gratuitous change that doesn't even affect the release | 20:11 |
| nikhil_k | ttx: thanks (got pulled away earlier) | 20:11 |
| notmyname | got it | 20:11 |
| ttx | i.e. the .gitreview change | 20:11 |
| ttx | I'd welcome your +2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174582/ | 20:11 |
| ttx | notmyname: ^ | 20:11 |
| notmyname | ttx: done | 20:12 |
| ttx | thx | 20:12 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I only pushed those changes for the libs where we were making branches | 20:13 |
| ttx | dhellmann: ah.Hm. Should probably push them for every project then. Checked for nova and assumed we did that everywhere | 20:14 |
| notmyname | ttx: so after .gitreview lands, then we'll be able to land the RC patches | 20:14 |
| notmyname | ? | 20:14 |
| ttx | notmyname: I'd rather have them all ready before we start merging them. The idea is to not kill the RC1 until we are ready to make a RC2 | 20:15 |
| ttx | as soon as we statr doing a RC2 people stop testing RC1 | 20:15 |
| ttx | so the shorter the window the better | 20:15 |
| notmyname | ok, makes sense. so we'll queue up the stuff to land, then open it (ie say "let's do rc2"), then land it all | 20:17 |
| ttx | yep | 20:17 |
| notmyname | ok, and we'll target early next week for that | 20:17 |
| notmyname | thaks | 20:17 |
| ttx | also helps seeing how risky the bundle is (not that important right now, but important when a few days from release) | 20:18 |
| ttx | notmyname: ack | 20:18 |
| notmyname | ttx: so we do have one change for rc2 that is dependent on the global requirements change. that's the only thing I'm worried about | 20:18 |
| ttx | agreed, that's why we can't do the RC2 fr swift until we get thigs all straighten out with requirements | 20:19 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I have a script ready to look for other projects that need their .gitreview updated; let me know when we're at a point where it's safe to run it | 20:29 |
| ttx | dhellmann: let's see tomorrow when we have the test results of the probes I launched | 20:30 |
| ttx | (keystone and swift) | 20:30 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok, I'll push it up as a review for release-tools since I won't be online tomorrow | 20:30 |
| ttx | ok thx | 20:30 |
| ttx | ok, I'm a bit tired now so I'll call it a day | 20:32 |
| ttx | dhellmann: so you won't be around at all tomorrow ? | 20:32 |
| dhellmann | ttx: https://review.openstack.org/174594 | 20:34 |
| dhellmann | ttx: no, it's a travel day :-/ | 20:34 |
| ttx | OK, I'll try to make progress where i can. | 20:34 |
| ttx | ttyl! | 20:35 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I'll be here for another 45 minutes or so | 20:36 |
| dhellmann | ttx: fungi has https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174595/1 ready to remove the requirements check jobs for libs in master so we can land the needed updates | 20:38 |
| fungi | looks like i should tweak the commit message there a teeny bit, just a sec | 20:39 |
| fungi | commit message improved | 20:40 |
| *** dims__ has quit IRC | 21:23 | |
| *** dims__ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 22:08 | |
| *** dims__ has quit IRC | 22:50 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!