| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 02:55 | |
| *** flaper87 has quit IRC | 06:45 | |
| *** flaper87 has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 06:45 | |
| ttx | SergeyLukjanov: ping me when around | 08:24 |
|---|---|---|
| ttx | flaper87: same | 08:24 |
| flaper87 | ttx: here | 08:24 |
| ttx | flaper87: ohai! I was looking into zaqarclient tests | 08:25 |
| ttx | In particular https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173865/ | 08:25 |
| ttx | But looks like tests arte broken on all branches | 08:25 |
| ttx | If I am to trust https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/python-zaqarclient,n,z | 08:25 |
| ttx | Anything we could/should do there ? | 08:26 |
| flaper87 | ttx: yeah, I'm working on fixing that. It's actually related to devstack and not the client. Will try to tackle that asap | 08:26 |
| ttx | cool, because this may block fixing requirements if we don't | 08:26 |
| flaper87 | I know what's going on, which is 1 step forward :P | 08:26 |
| flaper87 | Now I need to fix it :D | 08:26 |
| ttx | (we may be able to work around it, but simplerr to just get it fixed | 08:26 |
| * flaper87 stops procrastinating and fixes the gate | 08:26 | |
| ttx | flaper87: cool thanks | 08:27 |
| flaper87 | ttx: np, thank you for raising it | 08:27 |
| *** zz_johnthetubagu is now known as johnthetubaguy | 08:29 | |
| SergeyLukjanov | ttx, /me somewhere here | 09:14 |
| ttx | SergeyLukjanov: I think we got it covered thanks | 09:20 |
| ttx | SergeyLukjanov: maybe +2 https://review.openstack.org/175303 | 09:20 |
| SergeyLukjanov | ttx, 175303 merged | 09:49 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: we should talk nova RC2 again soon, hows things looking now? | 09:52 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: looking better | 09:53 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: I'd like a quick talk with dhellmann first, but I think stable/kilo is looking relatively well now, good enough to open RC2 windows and merge backports | 09:54 |
| ttx | we still need to work on master and libraries, but RC2s on the main projects should be ok | 09:54 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: could we talk about that in a couple of hours, once I disucssed status with Doug ? | 09:57 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: yeah, thats fine | 09:57 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: congrats on your election btw | 09:57 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: hope you'll be able to free up enough time ;) | 09:58 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: yeah, finger crossed, my manager seemed supportive before the election at least! | 10:11 |
| sdague | morning ttx | 10:26 |
| sdague | when you get a chance, can we chat about the oslo messaging bug / requirements fix? | 10:27 |
| ttx | sdague: yes! Maybe after my lunch / after your breakfast :) | 10:29 |
| sdague | sounds good, just let me know | 10:29 |
| ttx | sdague: available now | 11:54 |
| sdague | ok, cool | 11:54 |
| sdague | so... oslo.messaging | 11:54 |
| ttx | My understanding is that you need a new version cut and a requirements update | 11:55 |
| sdague | yes | 11:55 |
| sdague | actually, in the other order | 11:55 |
| * ttx chekc tsh req update | 11:55 | |
| ttx | The req update would only affect oslo.messaging, right | 11:55 |
| ttx | or would we also bumpt the min oslo.messaging in requirements ? | 11:56 |
| ttx | (as a step 3) | 11:56 |
| sdague | well, that's a good question | 11:58 |
| sdague | here is the situation | 11:58 |
| sdague | 1.8.1 with py amqp 1.3, is basically going to be a disaster for people | 11:58 |
| sdague | because 1.8.1 enables heartbeats by default | 11:59 |
| sdague | and amqp 1.3 easily goes into an infinite loop fail state with that code | 11:59 |
| ttx | sdague: I guess that raises the question of what warrants a min bump. Looks like the line is a bit grey | 12:00 |
| ttx | especially around release time when bumping mins has a cost to distros | 12:00 |
| ttx | If we take lifeless terminology, the min cap is part of the "known bad" definition | 12:01 |
| sdague | so, my feeling is a 1.8.2 with heartbeat off by default, and requiring versions of amqp that should work, seems good | 12:01 |
| ttx | If it is 1.8.1 only we could !=1.8.1 ? | 12:01 |
| sdague | so, that would mean reverting to 1.8.0, effectively | 12:01 |
| sdague | which drops code that people want, this heartbeat code | 12:02 |
| ttx | well no, we would still do 1.8.2 | 12:02 |
| ttx | so that would mean "1.8.0 or 1.8.2" | 12:02 |
| ttx | not sure if that would work, in practice | 12:02 |
| ttx | checking how long ago 1.8.0 was done | 12:03 |
| sdague | yeh, that being said, 1.8.1 will work ok if you pull up the requirements as well | 12:03 |
| ttx | Also sounds weird that you would enable heartbeats in a .Z, but meh | 12:03 |
| sdague | yeh, it's a new feature, and it's enabled by default | 12:03 |
| ttx | sounds a bit too much for a .Z in my book :) | 12:04 |
| ttx | hmm, if 1.8.1 works if you pull up reqs, I guess we don't have to bump the min | 12:04 |
| ttx | just unsure when we'll be able to push that, waiting for dhellmann to have a pow-wow on that | 12:05 |
| sdague | I still think we need the 1.8.2 that forces the working level of requirements, because there are a number of folks that discovered this issue | 12:05 |
| ttx | that = releasing a 1.8.2 | 12:05 |
| ttx | sdague: ++ | 12:05 |
| sdague | I'd be ok not making 1.8.2 the required min in kilo, we should probably just recommend it in release notes though | 12:05 |
| ttx | sounds good | 12:06 |
| ttx | Let's wait for dhellmann to get up before we unblock anything | 12:06 |
| ttx | Been working over the weekend to advance the work on unblocking reqs, and I think we are looking better now | 12:07 |
| ttx | mestery: ping me when around | 12:36 |
| ttx | redrobot: ping me when around re: Barbican RC1 | 12:38 |
| mestery | ttx: o/ | 12:41 |
| ttx | mestery: hi! I need your advice on one backport that seems to be needed to unblock stable/kilo testing | 12:42 |
| mestery | ttx: shoot! | 12:42 |
| ttx | Looks like we need https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175137 to unbork the branch | 12:42 |
| mestery | ttx: Looking ... | 12:43 |
| ttx | that is neutron-fwaas | 12:43 |
| ttx | the others all could merge stuff in | 12:44 |
| mestery | Yes | 12:44 |
| ttx | "stuff" being https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174747/ | 12:44 |
| ttx | If you agree that shoul dbe part of the release, +2 | 12:45 |
| mestery | heh, yes | 12:45 |
| mestery | I don't see a problem with https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175137/1 being a part of the release | 12:46 |
| ttx | just found it weird enough as a backport to ask for your blessing first | 12:46 |
| mestery | So +2 | 12:46 |
| ttx | rather than nikapproving it | 12:46 |
| ttx | mestery: cool thx | 12:46 |
| mestery | ttx: Looking through the list, the important ones all have backports out | 12:46 |
| mestery | Anything else is gravyu | 12:46 |
| mestery | Although I would like to cherry-pick this one, it finally merged over the weekend: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1438040 | 12:47 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 1438040 in neutron "fdb entries can't be removed when a VM is migrated" [High,Fix committed] - Assigned to Kyle Mestery (mestery) | 12:47 |
| mestery | Doing it now | 12:47 |
| ttx | ok, we'll consider the list for RC2 at the meeting tomorrow | 12:47 |
| mestery | NM, that one is already there | 12:47 |
| mestery | Ack | 12:47 |
| mestery | cool! | 12:47 |
| ttx | all branches should be fine by then | 12:47 |
| mestery | cool! | 12:49 |
| ttx | dhellmann: around ? Would like to discuss status after the weekend work | 12:51 |
| * ttx brbs | 12:53 | |
| *** superdan is now known as dansmith | 13:31 | |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 13:40 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 13:45 | |
| sdague | ttx: quick thing, when you are rb | 14:22 |
| sdague | could you make the columns for https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vCTZBJKCMZ2xBhglnuK3ciKo3E8UMFo5S5lmIAYMCSE/edit#gid=827503418 - (the cross project submissions) word wrap? | 14:22 |
| ttx | sdague: I regularly do. Damn Google Docs just adds unwrapped lines | 14:24 |
| ttx | (ignores existing formatting) | 14:24 |
| ttx | let me clean it up again | 14:25 |
| ttx | sdague: done | 14:25 |
| ttx | sdague: OK, let's assume dhellmann is on travel-back day. I'd like to sanity-check that we can probably open RC2 windows at this point | 14:35 |
| ttx | Over the weekend I managed to push a .gitreview change in every integrated release project stable/kilo branch | 14:36 |
| sdague | ok, let me get another cup of coffee, back in a couple of minutes, but I'll read scrollback | 14:36 |
| ttx | The only broken stable/kilo branch at this point is zaqarclient, but that's because its tests are universally broken, nothing stable/kilo specific | 14:37 |
| ttx | (flaper87 is working on fixing that) | 14:37 |
| ttx | So I think at this point we can safely open RC2 windows for integrated projects | 14:37 |
| ttx | We may even be able to issue the .Z kilo library releases mentioned at point 13 | 14:38 |
| ttx | (in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw) | 14:38 |
| ttx | I don't think those would affect the unborking on the requirements/master/library situation | 14:39 |
| ttx | (which we can discuss next) | 14:40 |
| sdague | ok, that's all probably true | 14:40 |
| ttx | hmm, wondering about one thing | 14:40 |
| ttx | imagine a lib with 1.0.0 in stable kilo and no 1.1.0/liberty version yet | 14:41 |
| ttx | if we issue 1.0.1 in kilo and master req is uncapped, that will be used for master testing | 14:41 |
| sdague | correct | 14:42 |
| ttx | I.. don't think that would be bad, right ? | 14:42 |
| ttx | (not good, but not bad either ?) | 14:42 |
| sdague | it could break the world | 14:42 |
| sdague | because of the requirements mismatch problem | 14:42 |
| ttx | oh, aye | 14:42 |
| ttx | inheirting the capped deps from stable/kilo | 14:42 |
| sdague | yeh | 14:42 |
| ttx | so we actually need to complete point 9.5 before | 14:43 |
| sdague | yeh | 14:43 |
| sdague | so what's the deal with barbican - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174527/ | 14:43 |
| ttx | barbican hasn't done its RC1 yet | 14:43 |
| sdague | also... I think this unwind is making me think we should never have done this | 14:44 |
| ttx | been trying to get hold of redrobot | 14:44 |
| sdague | aren't they way past when the RC1 is expecteD? | 14:44 |
| ttx | well incubated projects were in theory not affecting the rest of the process | 14:44 |
| ttx | so they can in theory do what they want, they are not even under release management | 14:44 |
| ttx | they can even miss the release, at least in theory | 14:45 |
| ttx | won't hold it on an incubated project | 14:45 |
| sdague | ok, except, they can break everything because of this requirements issue | 14:45 |
| ttx | right. Fun eh | 14:46 |
| sdague | requirements/project.txt seems like it has to be the list of the things that get active release management | 14:46 |
| ttx | well, only because some integarted project depends on them | 14:46 |
| sdague | and those are far from being true | 14:46 |
| ttx | right, we need to staff up | 14:46 |
| ttx | I also wonder if some sanity-checking of tags on libraries by release management wouldn't be a good thing too | 14:47 |
| ttx | since they seem to happen at the weirdest time | 14:47 |
| ttx | just because PTls can tag | 14:47 |
| ttx | but tha's another discussion | 14:48 |
| ttx | sdague: would we start 9.5 before 9.4 is completed ? | 14:48 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 14:48 | |
| ttx | That depends on whether any lib depends on barbicanclient kiteclient and zaqarclient | 14:49 |
| sdague | so, honestly, barabican client might be untested enough we can get around it | 14:49 |
| sdague | yeh, I don't think they do | 14:49 |
| sdague | so yes, I think 0.9.5 can move forward | 14:49 |
| sdague | I'd start with trying to get all of oslo released | 14:49 |
| ttx | Also neeed to doublecheck notmyname's view on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174544/ | 14:49 |
| ttx | I think he is "right" | 14:50 |
| sdague | notmyname is mostly right, I don't know about the sphinx line though | 14:50 |
| ttx | given that swift didn't sync anything, they don't need uncap | 14:50 |
| ttx | right, but they shouldn't break the world | 14:51 |
| ttx | OK, I'll list all libraries that need a liberty release | 14:51 |
| ttx | so we start 9.5 | 14:51 |
| ttx | I expect dhellmann to do Oslos when he shows up | 14:52 |
| ttx | sdague: thanks for your help validating/fixing my assumptions :) | 14:52 |
| sdague | no worries | 14:53 |
| ttx | I'll say that we almost had a boring release | 14:53 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 14:53 | |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: I guess we can lok into a RC2 Nova window now | 14:54 |
| ttx | if you have some time | 14:54 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: hey, I have a meeting in 5mins I need to go to, but we can talk for 5 mins? | 14:54 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: let's wait for end of your meeting | 14:55 |
| ttx | I have one in 5 min too | 14:55 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: ah, OK, np | 14:56 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: FWIW I think we need this one fixing urgently: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1445335 | 14:57 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 1445335 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "create/delete flavor permissions should be controlled by policy.json" [Critical,Confirmed] - Assigned to Divya K Konoor (dikonoor) | 14:57 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: ack... Note that it's a good exercise to look into all those late "critical" bugs and wonder how we could catch them in testing next time | 14:58 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: totally agreed, our policy testing is very weak at this point, it would seem :( | 14:59 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: I think sdague's push for more functional in tree tests is a great step, we just need to add the tests... | 14:59 |
| ttx | sdague: actually if I understand correctly, all libs need a new liberty release to include the recent uncapping. So no point in listing which ones need it | 15:05 |
| sdague | ttx: yes | 15:06 |
| sdague | well, the point in listing is to figure out which are outstanding | 15:06 |
| ttx | Right, can do the full list | 15:07 |
| redrobot | ttx o/ catching up on IRC | 15:14 |
| ttx | redrobot: so.. we kind of need an RC1 now | 15:15 |
| ttx | as it is blocking the rest of the process (didn't expect that, but now it does) | 15:15 |
| ttx | redrobot: at least we need a stable/kilo branch | 15:15 |
| redrobot | ttx the last showstopper CR landed this morning, so I could release an RC1 now, but we may need an RC2 pending a bug in discussion right now. | 15:16 |
| ttx | redrobot: sounds good | 15:16 |
| ttx | could you approve the open-liberty patch ? | 15:16 |
| ttx | We may even be ablke to backport the bug you mention between the cutting of the stable/kilo branch and the tagging of RC2 | 15:16 |
| redrobot | ttx ok, I'll get the Liberty CR merged shortly. | 15:17 |
| ttx | Also, any reason to hold on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174527/1 ? | 15:18 |
| ttx | That sounds unrelated to me... | 15:18 |
| ttx | redrobot: ^ | 15:18 |
| redrobot | ttx so we were wanting to release a barbicanclient 3.1.0 to include Kilo features, and I'm afraid uncapping the reqs now would break things when we release 3.10 | 15:21 |
| redrobot | ttx 3.1.0* ... but I need to check what the RC1 cap was for barbicanclient. | 15:21 |
| redrobot | ttx if other projects are capped at barbicanclient <3.1.0, then I think we could merge that uncap now, and backport any bugfixes into a 3.0.x branch. | 15:22 |
| ttx | redrobot: yes, it's a bit late to do a major update to the "kilo" lib | 15:23 |
| ttx | You can release a 3.1.0 as a "liberty" version of the lib | 15:24 |
| ttx | that way that won't break testing | 15:24 |
| redrobot | ttx ok, I doubt any other projects would be using the features not implemented in the client yet | 15:24 |
| ttx | right | 15:24 |
| ttx | so yes, please +2/APRV https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174527/1 | 15:24 |
| ttx | we need the uncap in to unbreak the world | 15:24 |
| redrobot | ttx done | 15:25 |
| ttx | redrobot: thx: | 15:27 |
| ttx | morganfainberg: around? | 15:28 |
| morganfainberg | O/ | 15:28 |
| morganfainberg | ttx: yes I am. | 15:29 |
| ttx | If you have kiteclient +2/APRV, could you push https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174537/ ? | 15:29 |
| morganfainberg | Just getting moving for the day. | 15:29 |
| ttx | morganfainberg: then we can find time to consider opening RC2 | 15:29 |
| morganfainberg | Don't have access for kite client. | 15:29 |
| ttx | dman, who does | 15:29 |
| morganfainberg | Barbican team I think | 15:29 |
| notmyname | ttx: when you get a moment.... | 15:30 |
| ttx | redrobot: I may also need you to push https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174537/ | 15:30 |
| morganfainberg | Though it might be a dead project. | 15:30 |
| morganfainberg | Don't think it was really developed. | 15:30 |
| ttx | hmm, so we could ignore it | 15:31 |
| * ttx checks if they ever merged the offending requirements | 15:32 | |
| redrobot | ttx workflowed the CR, but yeah, Jamie Lennox is the main contributor to that project and he hasn't done any work on it in some time. | 15:32 |
| ttx | redrobot: ok | 15:32 |
| ttx | morganfainberg: ping me when you're awake enough to discuss RC2 opening | 15:33 |
| morganfainberg | ttx: awake enough now. | 15:34 |
| ttx | I need a sec though :) | 15:34 |
| morganfainberg | Sure. I'm writing emails and updating bugs / closing bugs that would break people. | 15:35 |
| ttx | morganfainberg: ok, around now | 15:43 |
| morganfainberg | ttx: :) | 15:43 |
| ttx | so.. keystone rc2 | 15:43 |
| morganfainberg | Yay. Rc2 :P | 15:44 |
| ttx | We kind of already opened it to merge https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174053/ | 15:44 |
| ttx | so let's make it official | 15:44 |
| morganfainberg | Sounds good. | 15:44 |
| ttx | Then we can check what's on https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/keystone+branch:stable/kilo,n,z | 15:44 |
| ttx | and see if anything else would be interesting to add | 15:45 |
| morganfainberg | There are about 5-6 bugs I would like to land to rc2. The one you linked was the #1 priority | 15:45 |
| ttx | bah, already opened | 15:45 |
| * ttx cleans it up | 15:46 | |
| morganfainberg | One of the bugs is just man page updates / sample config. Since we had the rc2 window. | 15:46 |
| morganfainberg | So minimal things to hit rc2 but all are useful / good fixes. | 15:47 |
| ttx | https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/kilo-rc2 | 15:47 |
| ttx | The 3 listed there are proposed for merging on stable/kilo | 15:48 |
| morganfainberg | That looks about right. | 15:48 |
| ttx | + https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1443598 | 15:48 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 1443598 in Keystone kilo "backend_argument containing a password leaked in logs" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Doug Hellmann (doug-hellmann) | 15:48 |
| morganfainberg | The only other thing should be man page / sample config update(s) | 15:48 |
| ttx | + https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1441300 | 15:49 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 1441300 in Keystone "keystone-manage man page updates" [Medium,Fix committed] - Assigned to Lance Bragstad (lbragstad) | 15:49 |
| morganfainberg | Yeah. We need to generate specifically for the branch though. | 15:49 |
| morganfainberg | Can't just backport. | 15:49 |
| ttx | they have backports proposed already | 15:49 |
| morganfainberg | Since Liberty dev has already happened. | 15:49 |
| morganfainberg | I'll have the man page/sample config up today. | 15:49 |
| ttx | morganfainberg: do they need to be regenerated ? Already proposed at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174056/ | 15:50 |
| morganfainberg | The other one I'd be ok with also landing. Also no backport. | 15:50 |
| ttx | If they need an update, you should -2 this one | 15:50 |
| morganfainberg | I'll 2x check that one make sure they are generated correctly. | 15:51 |
| morganfainberg | And push a change up if they aren't. | 15:51 |
| morganfainberg | This morning. | 15:51 |
| ttx | OK, does that look complete enough at this point ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/kilo-rc2 | 15:52 |
| morganfainberg | The other bug re: backend arguments should be in rc2. | 15:52 |
| morganfainberg | Lgtm. | 15:52 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 15:53 | |
| ttx | quick checking other fixcommitted bugs | 15:54 |
| ttx | morganfainberg: https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1421968 | 15:55 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 1421968 in Keystone "List Endpoint Groups Associated with project not routed" [Medium,Fix committed] - Assigned to Lin Hua Cheng (lin-hua-cheng) | 15:55 |
| ttx | and https://bugs.launchpad.net/keystone/+bug/1430951 | 15:55 |
| openstack | Launchpad bug 1430951 in Keystone "Revocation causes duplicate (and overly broad?) events in revocation table" [High,Fix committed] - Assigned to Alexander Makarov (amakarov) | 15:55 |
| ttx | 1421968 was explicitely moved to L | 15:55 |
| morganfainberg | yeah that one isn't going to land in K | 15:56 |
| morganfainberg | it's a massive mess to unwind | 15:56 |
| morganfainberg | and has been broken for a looooong time | 15:56 |
| morganfainberg | or wait | 15:56 |
| ttx | ok | 15:56 |
| morganfainberg | there were three of those bugs that were similar | 15:56 |
| morganfainberg | let me see which one that was | 15:56 |
| morganfainberg | this one can land in K | 15:57 |
| morganfainberg | just landed late | 15:57 |
| morganfainberg | so missed rc1 | 15:57 |
| morganfainberg | the other one was group-based revocations | 15:57 |
| morganfainberg | and that was a mess | 15:57 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 15:58 | |
| morganfainberg | but i want to say this was an odd batch | 15:58 |
| morganfainberg | lets not target it to rc2 | 15:58 |
| ttx | ack | 15:58 |
| ttx | notmyname: we can talk now | 15:59 |
| notmyname | ttx: thanks | 15:59 |
| notmyname | ttx: we're working on RC2 patches (or getting them lined up). should have a good list by the end of my day | 16:00 |
| ttx | notmyname: I guess we should push that requirement bump | 16:00 |
| notmyname | ttx: but I'm curious on the status of bumping the dependency in global requirements | 16:00 |
| notmyname | ya | 16:00 |
| notmyname | do you need anything from me on it? | 16:00 |
| ttx | I'd have preferred to get Doug's opinion on it, since he was on top of the master issues | 16:00 |
| notmyname | when will he be around? | 16:00 |
| ttx | but if sdague blesses it, I can't find a good reason why not to push it now myself, given it only impacts swift | 16:01 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174171/ | 16:01 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174167/ | 16:01 |
| ttx | sdague: what do you think of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174171/ ? I think it's safe at this point | 16:02 |
| ttx | especially with swift manual dep update | 16:02 |
| sdague | ttx: yeh, that seems fine | 16:03 |
| sdague | it's a known RC bug right? | 16:03 |
| ttx | yes | 16:03 |
| notmyname | yup | 16:03 |
| notmyname | as soon as it lands, we'll land a patch to update the requirements and fix the issue in the code | 16:03 |
| sdague | should we get the bug ref in the commit message? | 16:04 |
| notmyname | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/175299/ | 16:04 |
| ttx | oops, approved them | 16:04 |
| notmyname | I can post-facto create on if the process requires it | 16:04 |
| ttx | notmyname: let's open the rc2 milestone for swift | 16:04 |
| sdague | well, normally stuff like that requires a bug in the commit message for tracking purposes | 16:05 |
| sdague | but, ttx already approved, so be it | 16:05 |
| notmyname | :-) | 16:05 |
| notmyname | thanks ttx | 16:05 |
| ttx | I'll require the bug on the swift fix :P | 16:05 |
| notmyname | ttx: what does "open the rc2 milestone" mean for what we do today? | 16:05 |
| ttx | https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/2.3.0-rc2 | 16:05 |
| ttx | You can create the bug corresponding to the fix and target it to that ^ | 16:06 |
| notmyname | can we also land https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174167/ so we can get patches to master before backporting for rc2? | 16:06 |
| notmyname | ah, nm. refesh shows it's there already :-) | 16:06 |
| ttx | notmyname: When the bug is created, would be good to reference it in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174225/ | 16:07 |
| ttx | then I can approve that change if (1) it corresponds to a bug being targeted to RC2 and (2) it's been fixed in master already | 16:08 |
| ttx | the goal of the process is to avoid losing fixes between branches | 16:08 |
| ttx | So you'll need an equivalent of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174225/ for the master branch | 16:08 |
| ttx | and get that merged | 16:09 |
| notmyname | ok | 16:09 |
| notmyname | FWIW, looks like I can +2/+A on stable/kilo for swift | 16:09 |
| ttx | and looks like I can't | 16:09 |
| ttx | probably some mismatch when we pushed the special pre-release ACL | 16:10 |
| notmyname | the tables have turned ;-) | 16:10 |
| ttx | notmyname: so I'll rely on you :) | 16:10 |
| ttx | notmyname: so.. create LP bug, target it to RC2, reference it in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174225/, create a master equivalent of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174225/ and merge it | 16:11 |
| ttx | then we can approve https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174225/ | 16:11 |
| ttx | Is there anything else to merge for that fix ? | 16:11 |
| ttx | Is there any other fix you'd like to see before we respin RC2 ? | 16:11 |
| notmyname | yes | 16:11 |
| notmyname | there are a few others. I'll have a good picture by the end of my day today | 16:12 |
| notmyname | https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Swift/PriorityReviews | 16:12 |
| ttx | hmm, err | 16:12 |
| notmyname | need to validate those listed and get them landed | 16:12 |
| notmyname | if necessary | 16:12 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174225/ is actually very confusing | 16:12 |
| ttx | It's for master but with topic "stable/kilo" | 16:13 |
| ttx | so I assumed it was a stable/kilo thing | 16:13 |
| notmyname | ah, that looks wrong | 16:13 |
| notmyname | see https://review.openstack.org/#/q/I03e059e7335656c22be28ffd6157b56e13bdfc1b,n,z | 16:13 |
| notmyname | hmm | 16:14 |
| ttx | It's fine, just needs the stable/kilo backport :) | 16:14 |
| notmyname | I'll take care fo that today | 16:14 |
| ttx | that may explain why I couldn't +2 it :) | 16:15 |
| ttx | tables turn again | 16:15 |
| ttx | You seem to have https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174552/ on the backport list too | 16:15 |
| ttx | Would be good to have a RC2-targeted bug for taht one as well | 16:16 |
| ttx | notmyname: then we can pick up the result at the sync tomorrow | 16:17 |
| notmyname | yes | 16:17 |
| ttx | sounds good. Talk to you tomorrow | 16:17 |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: hi, I am more free now, when you are | 16:18 |
| ttx | johnthetubaguy: I think we lost the window. Let's talk at the 1:1 sync tomorrow | 16:18 |
| * ttx needs to cut Barbican RC1 now | 16:18 | |
| johnthetubaguy | ttx: OK, np | 16:19 |
| ttx | redrobot: https://launchpad.net/barbican/+milestone/kilo-rc1 -- keep me informed if you need an RC2 | 16:34 |
| redrobot | ttx will do, thanks. | 16:34 |
| sdague | ttx: silent just brought up - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174930 again in #openstack-oslo | 16:41 |
| ttx | sdague: I agree on the plan, not sure the timing is right though | 16:43 |
| sdague | ttx: ok | 16:43 |
| ttx | i.e. not sure what this requirements/master merge will (or rather won't in the current state) trigger. | 16:43 |
| sdague | ok | 16:44 |
| ttx | the sync jobs and some test jobs being desactivated and all | 16:44 |
| ttx | so let's wait until tomorrow and dhellmann's return | 16:44 |
| sdague | ok | 16:46 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 16:55 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 16:58 | |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 17:40 | |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 17:47 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 17:50 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 17:52 | |
| *** david-lyle_ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 18:01 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| *** david-lyle_ is now known as david-lyle | 18:06 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:20 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 18:20 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:41 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy is now known as zz_johnthetubagu | 19:19 | |
| *** asalkeld has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 21:15 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 22:04 | |
| *** david-ly_ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 23:44 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 23:45 | |
| *** david-ly_ is now known as david-lyle | 23:46 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!