| *** ykarel_ is now known as ykarel | 04:51 | |
| *** pojadhav|afk is now known as pojadhav | 05:10 | |
| *** dasm|off is now known as dasm | 13:21 | |
| slaweq | gmann: hi, I may be little bit late for the tc meeting today | 13:55 |
|---|---|---|
| slaweq | but I should be there | 13:56 |
| gmann | slaweq: ack, thanks | 14:31 |
| gmann | tc-members: meeting in 2 min from now | 14:58 |
| gmann | #startmeeting tc | 15:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu May 19 15:00:18 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 15:00 |
| gmann | #topic Roll call | 15:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 15:00 |
| dansmith | o/ | 15:00 |
| slaweq | o/ | 15:00 |
| * slaweq is on time :) | 15:00 | |
| dpawlik | o/ | 15:01 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 15:01 |
| arne_wiebalck | o/ | 15:01 |
| gmann | let's start | 15:02 |
| gmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting | 15:02 |
| gmann | ^^ today agenda | 15:02 |
| gmann | #topic Follow up on past action items | 15:02 |
| gmann | none from previous meeting | 15:02 |
| gmann | #topic Gate health check | 15:03 |
| gmann | any news | 15:03 |
| dansmith | so there was something mentioned about my dbcounter thing breaking jammy, | 15:03 |
| dansmith | but for reasons that make no sense and I haven't been able to repro locally | 15:03 |
| gmann | ok, jammy jobs are made non voting now | 15:03 |
| dansmith | like, pip complaints that the python-builtin module 'glob' is not available <-- makes no sense | 15:03 |
| dansmith | right | 15:03 |
| gmann | humm | 15:04 |
| dansmith | other than that, | 15:04 |
| dansmith | I've got this proposed: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/838947 | 15:04 |
| dansmith | which attempts to highlight perf regressions, although I think it's still up in the air whether or not it's worthwhile | 15:04 |
| dansmith | but might be interesting to some | 15:04 |
| gmann | +1, this will be helpful | 15:05 |
| gmann | I will review it | 15:05 |
| dansmith | also sounds like a couple people are working gate stability fixes through, for instance resize and one other I forget at the moment | 15:05 |
| gmann | yeah, c9s again failing on detach volume things, which again is going to be fixed/workaround by making test SSH-able | 15:05 |
| fungi | dns resolver startup race for fips jobs | 15:05 |
| dansmith | oh there's some tripleo c9s failure too I think | 15:05 |
| dansmith | related to libvirt and libvirt-python being broken in cs9 right? | 15:06 |
| gmann | I am trying to make all detach volume waiting for SSH-able server but not yet passing #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/842240 | 15:06 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:06 |
| fungi | at this point we're thinking we should probably change the systemd service unit for unbound so that the system doesn't consider itself fully "booted" until dns resolution works | 15:06 |
| gmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-May/028568.html | 15:07 |
| gmann | fungi: ok | 15:07 |
| knikolla | o/ | 15:08 |
| gmann | not sure if ubuntu image with fips are available or when to be available. I am less hope of having c9s stable for this testing | 15:08 |
| spotz | o/ | 15:08 |
| gmann | I think ade_lee will be keeping eyes on it | 15:08 |
| gmann | anything else on gate? | 15:09 |
| dansmith | not from me | 15:09 |
| ade_lee | I definitely will | 15:09 |
| slaweq | I still didn't had time to make script to count "naked" rechecks in projects | 15:09 |
| fungi | gmann: ade_lee prodded the canonical folks about ubuntu fips options again this week, no response yet that i've seen | 15:09 |
| gmann | ade_lee: thanks | 15:09 |
| slaweq | but I hope I will have more time for it next week | 15:09 |
| slaweq | so hopefully I will have some data on next meeting | 15:09 |
| gmann | slaweq: np!, thanks for working on it. | 15:09 |
| gmann | fungi: I see. thanks for updates | 15:10 |
| gmann | #topic Zed cycle tracker checks | 15:10 |
| gmann | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-zed-tracker | 15:10 |
| gmann | we have many item in progress and under review | 15:10 |
| gmann | but please start the items not yet started. | 15:11 |
| gmann | any updates or anything on zed tracker today ? | 15:11 |
| arne_wiebalck | I talked to Artem and Belmiro for the OSC. | 15:11 |
| arne_wiebalck | To get an idea where things are. | 15:12 |
| arne_wiebalck | Artem is (ofc) very interested. | 15:12 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:12 |
| arne_wiebalck | He mentioned Glance and Cinder (IIRC) as areas which need improvement. | 15:12 |
| arne_wiebalck | To which I replied we have dansmith :-D | 15:12 |
| slaweq | I think that this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/840856 is ready for review | 15:13 |
| gmann | :) | 15:13 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:13 |
| slaweq | so if You have time, please take a look | 15:13 |
| arne_wiebalck | Artem has a fourm session on this at the summit. | 15:13 |
| gmann | slaweq: ack | 15:13 |
| arne_wiebalck | *forum | 15:13 |
| arne_wiebalck | I guess this will provide a good starting point what issues to tackle for the OSC. | 15:13 |
| gmann | arne_wiebalck: do you think this is ready for making goal now or pop-up team to get progress for glance, cinder? | 15:13 |
| arne_wiebalck | gmann: how about we wait for the forum session to answer your question? | 15:14 |
| gmann | arne_wiebalck: ok, sounds good plan | 15:14 |
| dansmith | arne_wiebalck: I'm very pro-glance-being-better-on-osc, but I am in the vast minority :) | 15:14 |
| gmann | humm | 15:15 |
| gmann | let | 15:15 |
| rosmaita | cinder is supposed to meet with some OSC people either next week or during our first midcycle to discuss | 15:15 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:15 |
| arne_wiebalck | dansmith: would be good if the glance folks came to the forum session maybe? | 15:15 |
| arne_wiebalck | rosmaita: great | 15:15 |
| gmann | let's see how it goes in forum and I think having it as a goal can push work more fast | 15:16 |
| rosmaita | there are some big issues around how the OSC syntax does not make sense for some operations | 15:16 |
| arne_wiebalck | gmann: ++ | 15:16 |
| rosmaita | and to what extent that can be addressed | 15:16 |
| gmann | ok | 15:17 |
| gmann | anything else on this? | 15:17 |
| arne_wiebalck | not from me | 15:17 |
| gmann | arne_wiebalck: thanks for checking and start working on it. | 15:17 |
| gmann | #topic TC meeting with Board of Directors | 15:17 |
| gmann | one update on this. we have 45 min time to meet/present to board. | 15:18 |
| gmann | I will prepare the slides as per the agenda discussed and share with you all for review/updates | 15:18 |
| jungleboyj | \o/ | 15:18 |
| dansmith | thanks gmann :) | 15:18 |
| jungleboyj | Glad that we could reach an agreement on that. Thank you gmann! | 15:18 |
| fungi | has that meeting been scheduled yet? and who is encouraged to attend? | 15:19 |
| gmann | it is in draft agenda but details will be soon on how to join and who all can join. non board member need RSVP I think | 15:19 |
| gmann | btw who all are planning to be in-person in summit | 15:19 |
| dansmith | not me | 15:20 |
| gmann | I am planning to join virtually | 15:20 |
| slaweq | I will be in Berlin | 15:20 |
| rosmaita | not me | 15:20 |
| fungi | oh, wait, this is during the board meeting in berlin? i thought the project leaders weren't meeting with the board there | 15:20 |
| jungleboyj | I will not be physically or virtually. I will be on a lake with little to no wifi. | 15:20 |
| slaweq | but I didn't plan to go to the Board meeting on Monday | 15:20 |
| fungi | and TheJulia was scheduling alternative meeting options for project leadership | 15:20 |
| gmann | fungi: yeah TC+Board. | 15:20 |
| arne_wiebalck | I will be in Berlin as well. | 15:21 |
| dansmith | fungi: there was much confusion, but I think the end result was a short meeting with the board during the board meeting, and then longer virtual openstack-specific call later | 15:21 |
| gmann | fungi: you mean project+board interaction? that is separate topic I have proposed | 15:21 |
| fungi | oh, thanks. so two separate meetings. openstack gets 45 minutes during the board meeting, and then there will be a separate openstack+board meeting as well | 15:22 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: That was my understanding as well. | 15:22 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: Yes and I think that the separate meeting will be one or more virtual meetings | 15:22 |
| knikolla | i will be in Berlin and on monday as well | 15:22 |
| fungi | but other projects will not have an opportunity to meet with the board in berlin, only openstack? | 15:23 |
| gmann | fungi: no, 45 min OpenStack+Board. other one is in board formal meeting on topic "Open Infra project+board interaction" | 15:23 |
| spotz | I'll be in Berlin | 15:23 |
| gmann | fungi: TheJulia is talking to other projects | 15:23 |
| gmann | so arne_wiebalck slaweq spotz knikolla will be there | 15:23 |
| fungi | yeah, i've been in those conversations. just making sure i understand that teh other projects aren't being handled the same as openstack this time | 15:24 |
| slaweq | gmann should I then plan to be on the meeting with Board on Monday? | 15:24 |
| gmann | let board schedule comes out. it is still in draft for other projects or so | 15:24 |
| dansmith | fungi: I don't think there's any special treatment going on here | 15:24 |
| fungi | i think it wasn't clearly communicated to other projects that only openstack leadership would be participating in the board meeting | 15:24 |
| gmann | fungi: yeah. its same for everyone. | 15:24 |
| dansmith | fungi: there was definitely confusion about the different plan this time and the other projects hadn't (last I heard) expressed a need/desire | 15:24 |
| arne_wiebalck | I will be travelling on Monday (the TC/board meeting arrangements were made somewhat late relative to travel organisation so I did not take this into account) | 15:25 |
| gmann | yes, few have not responded yet may be. but TheJulia is asking to all proejcts | 15:25 |
| gmann | arne_wiebalck: ack | 15:25 |
| arne_wiebalck | gmann: at which time is the meeting? | 15:25 |
| * arne_wiebalck could probably look this up ... | 15:26 | |
| gmann | anyways let baord schedule comes out and how other projects are planning | 15:26 |
| fungi | the communications i was in on indicated that the board of directors didn't have time to meet with project leadership in berlin and were interested in setting up separate meetings | 15:26 |
| gmann | arne_wiebalck: 9am -5 pm local time but with two part | 15:26 |
| gmann | anything else on this topic? | 15:26 |
| fungi | so openstack being involved in the board meeting is definitely not consistent with what was communicated, hence my confusion | 15:26 |
| dansmith | fungi: there was much confusion | 15:27 |
| arne_wiebalck | gmann: thanks! | 15:27 |
| gmann | fungi: yeah those were all confusion but we are checking with all projetcs | 15:27 |
| fungi | thanks for confirming. i'll try to follow up with TheJulia to get a clearer explanation | 15:27 |
| gmann | #topic New ELK service dashboard: e-r service | 15:27 |
| gmann | dpawlik: any updates on this? | 15:27 |
| slaweq | I'm not sure if dpawlik is still there | 15:28 |
| slaweq | but he told me that he didn't make anything new | 15:28 |
| gmann | ok. thanks for updates | 15:28 |
| slaweq | and that dasm is working on e-r | 15:28 |
| gmann | cool | 15:29 |
| slaweq | but I don't have more details about it | 15:29 |
| gmann | #topic 'SLURP' as release cadence terminology | 15:29 |
| gmann | so SLURP is agreed name and I have proposed patch to change name in resolution #link #link | 15:29 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/840354 | 15:29 |
| gmann | please review that | 15:29 |
| gmann | release notes part as discussed will be handled by rosmaita | 15:30 |
| rosmaita | i will have a patch up about that ... soon | 15:30 |
| gmann | cool, thanks | 15:30 |
| gmann | anything else on this? | 15:30 |
| gmann | #topic Use release number or name in development process/cycle | 15:31 |
| gmann | elodilles: ttx ping | 15:31 |
| elodilles | o/ | 15:31 |
| gmann | we agreed to handover the release name process to Foundation and TC will not be involved in that | 15:31 |
| gmann | so no question on this part | 15:32 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:32 |
| gmann | but while proposing it documentation, another part came up how to use name/number in developement cycle | 15:32 |
| gmann | like release page, schedule, automated tooling etc | 15:33 |
| fungi | branch names | 15:33 |
| gmann | I have proposed 3 option for this #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/841800/2/reference/release-naming.rst#36 | 15:33 |
| gmann | yeah, branch name | 15:33 |
| gmann | and release team also discussed it in their meeting | 15:33 |
| elodilles | in rel-mgmt weekly meetings the milestone name and branch name came up | 15:33 |
| gmann | release page title can be both "OpenStack 2023.1 AA" | 15:34 |
| elodilles | ++ | 15:34 |
| gmann | but milestone and especially branch name should be number? | 15:34 |
| elodilles | we discussed that milestone name is more clear with name | 15:35 |
| gmann | and so other automated tooling, dir structure in spec repo etc | 15:35 |
| elodilles | e.g. aardvark-1 compared to 2023.1-1 milestone | 15:35 |
| gmann | My thought was use name only in marketing side | 15:35 |
| fungi | the primary concern being that 2023.1-1 might make consumers think 2023.1 is already released | 15:35 |
| gmann | and in developement process during or at the release we use number | 15:36 |
| rosmaita | no, i think the idea was that the community likes using the names | 15:36 |
| slaweq | maybe something like 2023.1-m1 | 15:36 |
| gmann | +1, 2023.1-m1 is more clear | 15:36 |
| gmann | rosmaita: that is my concern, if we continue using name in everywhere then how number will be communicated, they will be just go un-notice | 15:37 |
| rosmaita | i thought the problem we were trying to solve was that while names are fun, it was no longer fun to try to come up with names | 15:37 |
| dansmith | well, right now the version numbers are more confusing that useful, so switching to the new format and promoting them to more wide use would be good IMHO | 15:38 |
| dansmith | especially in preparation for the foundation throwing up their hands in two years and saying "meh names are too hard" :P | 15:38 |
| arne_wiebalck | dansmith: :-D | 15:38 |
| gmann | yeah, promoting numbers has long term benefits | 15:38 |
| rosmaita | i thought we were keeping the confusing individual project version numbering? | 15:38 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:38 |
| dansmith | rosmaita: isn't that the whole point of the unified date versioning? | 15:39 |
| gmann | rosmaita: yes, they stay same | 15:39 |
| dansmith | so get everyone on the same thing? | 15:39 |
| dansmith | oh? | 15:39 |
| rosmaita | dansmith: see^^ | 15:39 |
| dansmith | then I'm very confused | 15:39 |
| gmann | no change in number schema what belmiro proposed and we all agreed | 15:39 |
| rosmaita | belmiro's original update specifically said ^^ | 15:39 |
| dansmith | okay I totes missed that | 15:39 |
| rosmaita | my impression was that the point was we will have Austin and Aardvark and need to know which is first | 15:40 |
| gmann | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#release-identification | 15:40 |
| rosmaita | so we will have 2023.1 Aardvark | 15:40 |
| gmann | rosmaita: yeah that is there till we were ok with name also | 15:40 |
| rosmaita | right, and i thought we were revising because we couldn't come up with a good naming process | 15:41 |
| gmann | as name are moving towards the marketing usage we should just use the number and name where we need more market things | 15:41 |
| rosmaita | but that problem is now solved | 15:41 |
| rosmaita | i think we continue to use both as long as we have them both | 15:41 |
| gmann | rosmaita: so even with '2023.1 Aardvark' what is your idea on branch, release miletsone, spec dir side? | 15:41 |
| dansmith | where on there does it say the project versions stay the same? | 15:41 |
| gmann | we cannot use both there, it should be one right? | 15:42 |
| rosmaita | not there it's in the resolution | 15:42 |
| dansmith | okay | 15:42 |
| rosmaita | sounds like release team prefers name for milestone | 15:42 |
| gmann | stable/2023.1 or stable/AA or stable/2023.1.AA ? | 15:43 |
| elodilles | rosmaita: ++ | 15:43 |
| rosmaita | and we already have the branch tooling set up around names | 15:43 |
| elodilles | rosmaita: ++ :) | 15:43 |
| rosmaita | and we'll never have two of the same beginning letter in the stable branches | 15:43 |
| gmann | that is what changes are proposed and we need to change tooling also | 15:43 |
| rosmaita | because we delete eol branches | 15:43 |
| slaweq | so I will ask differently - do we really need that version numbers? If we are going to use name everywhere like it is currently | 15:44 |
| gmann | so just drop the number things as we are not using them anywhere than just in TC release-naming-process-page | 15:44 |
| gmann | slaweq: exactly | 15:44 |
| rosmaita | they will probably be used elsewhere | 15:44 |
| gmann | if we are not changing the implementation then there is no use of number | 15:44 |
| jungleboyj | I feel like we have just gone in a circle. | 15:44 |
| gmann | elsewhere where? | 15:45 |
| slaweq | jungleboyj++ | 15:45 |
| rosmaita | like announcements, "openstack releases 2023.1 Aardvark" | 15:45 |
| rosmaita | i missed where the tooling discussion happened, i guess | 15:45 |
| slaweq | but at least name will not be choosen by TC anymore, and that's basically only change I think | 15:45 |
| rosmaita | slaweq: that was my understanding | 15:46 |
| gmann | I think our main purpose for number is to give operator, user start knowing openstack release by number | 15:46 |
| slaweq | which IMHO is also good if that's what is prefered | 15:46 |
| gmann | rosmaita: you mean use name everywhere and number only in marketing ? | 15:46 |
| rosmaita | i thought it was for assisting them | 15:46 |
| fungi | rosmaita: release tooling was discussed in the release meeting last friday | 15:46 |
| fungi | #link https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2022/releaseteam.2022-05-13-14.00.log.html#l-41 | 15:47 |
| rosmaita | yeah, but i am on the tc not the release team | 15:47 |
| gmann | I think we need to first decide or re-decide that we want OpenStack release to be primarily identified by NAME or NUMBER ? | 15:48 |
| spotz | Name:) | 15:48 |
| gmann | rosmaita: we have not discussed in TC and just said Number as primary identifier | 15:48 |
| gmann | spotz: then why we agreed on number in release process? | 15:49 |
| gmann | release name process | 15:49 |
| fungi | rosmaita: the release managers manage the release tooling/automation, so release tooling changes get discussed in the release meeting | 15:49 |
| fungi | and then raised with the tc in the tc meeting | 15:50 |
| gmann | this section explain why we need NUMBER #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#release-identification | 15:50 |
| spotz | gmann I've been arguing for name all along. And there's 2 ways to think of the primary identifier, what everyone calls it and what's in the systems | 15:50 |
| gmann | IMO, if we are keeping name as it is then we just remove the Number things as it will be un-used and un-notice | 15:50 |
| gmann | spotz: you +1 on release number things #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/829563 | 15:51 |
| dansmith | to be honest, the addition of the number if we're not moving projects to that seems like we've just added another disjoint version number.. it was mentioned in the commit and in the comments on the last PS, | 15:51 |
| dansmith | but it really (really) wasn't what I was thinking we were doing | 15:51 |
| jungleboyj | But, in the page you reference above it says that we need the number as it being the 'A' release is ambiguous given that we are on our second iteration through the alphabet. | 15:51 |
| slaweq | I think that even if we will be using both, like e.g. AArdvark 2023.1 then everyone will in practice use only Aardvark | 15:52 |
| rosmaita | OK, so where that page says "The release identification schema doesn’t replace the release name. It’s just an unambiguous way to identify OpenStack releases.", what has changed? | 15:52 |
| spotz | If that's the direction we were going I supported it, but that patch is WAY behind our more recent discussions | 15:52 |
| dansmith | mentioned in the commit *message* I should say, | 15:53 |
| dansmith | but not on the actual doc we were reviewing | 15:53 |
| jungleboyj | I don't have a problem with adding the 2023.1 designation. I see its usefulness. | 15:53 |
| slaweq | jungleboyj: totally agree | 15:53 |
| gmann | so we are moving back to ground because it is hard/not-prefered to use number in release miletsone and stable branch? | 15:55 |
| ttx | if keeping the name anywhere is going to prevent people from fully switching to numbers, that tells a bit about how much humans prefer to communicate using words :) | 15:55 |
| ttx | (but I'll shut up) | 15:55 |
| rosmaita | ttx: ++ | 15:55 |
| gmann | dansmith: even we remove the projects versions things which is separate discussion though, I do not think we agreeing on what to use number of name | 15:55 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:55 |
| spotz | ttx +infinity:) | 15:56 |
| dansmith | gmann: right, but it informs my opinion on how important it is to use another number with the name | 15:56 |
| gmann | ttx: it could be other way around too :) if number were used then switching to name could be in same boat | 15:56 |
| dansmith | gmann: and I'm sorry for apparently reading that doc with a totally different interpretation.. my bad apparently | 15:56 |
| dansmith | ttx: fwiw, I refer to ubuntu releases based on their number because it's so much easier to know the order and age | 15:57 |
| dansmith | I can sometimes remember the lts release names, but never the intermediates | 15:57 |
| slaweq | dansmith++ | 15:57 |
| gmann | yeah, both have their own pros and cons. numbers give is more time-relation to release | 15:58 |
| dansmith | like I can look at my system still running 12.04 and feel the shame | 15:58 |
| slaweq | I think that people just get used to names already and that's why they will not switch to numbers if name will still be used everywhere | 15:58 |
| gmann | ok 2 min left and I think we need re-discuss the naming/numbering things as we are back to ground on this | 15:58 |
| jungleboyj | :-) Less shame in keeping a Bionic Beaver around? :-) | 15:58 |
| slaweq | :D | 15:59 |
| dansmith | johnsom: I definitely don't remember the animal, ever.. only the adjective.. good point | 15:59 |
| dansmith | er, jungleboyj ^ | 15:59 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:59 |
| gmann | should we meet on call to figure that out? | 15:59 |
| gmann | adhoc meeitng? | 15:59 |
| rosmaita | i think the other thing we need to address is what we have asked the foundation to do exactly | 16:00 |
| dansmith | yeah, I think there has been a lot of change since we had all this discussion initially, so we might want to have a specific voice call about it | 16:00 |
| rosmaita | i thought we wanted them to come up with a name following our criteria | 16:00 |
| ttx | dansmith: sure -- and yet they use the name during the development cycle and in the branch names :) | 16:00 |
| gmann | ? that is clear right. they will handle the name | 16:00 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: I thought so. | 16:00 |
| rosmaita | yeah, but following alphabetical ordering? 10 char limit? no emojis? | 16:00 |
| gmann | rosmaita: come up with name as per the criteria they want | 16:01 |
| ttx | no emojis? That's it, I quit | 16:01 |
| jungleboyj | I thought we had agreed to not remove the names. So, I think the question is whether we make the numbering more visible. | 16:01 |
| * jungleboyj laughs at ttx | 16:01 | |
| gmann | jungleboyj: yeah | 16:01 |
| rosmaita | no, i thought they could use whatever *process* they want to find a name that meets our criteria | 16:01 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: ++ | 16:01 |
| jungleboyj | They are going to work on figuring out the naming process. | 16:02 |
| gmann | rosmaita: if they want to meet our criteria then what change made? just moving execution form TC to Foudnation. I think we said let foundation to come up with name and no TC involvement | 16:02 |
| gmann | yeah, they can pick our or their own | 16:02 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: ++ | 16:02 |
| rosmaita | the change is that they will handle finding a name that meets our criteria | 16:02 |
| gmann | anyways we are going out of time. I will schedule a voice all sometime next week on this | 16:02 |
| rosmaita | like, we do expect them to keep the alphabetical ordering, right? | 16:03 |
| jungleboyj | rosmaita: ++ | 16:03 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: ++ | 16:03 |
| gmann | rosmaita: no, whatever they like to name :) | 16:03 |
| slaweq | sorry but I have to leave now. I'm ok with adhoc meeting to discuss that once again if it will be needed | 16:03 |
| slaweq | o/ | 16:03 |
| gmann | rosmaita: anyways we will discuss that too | 16:03 |
| rosmaita | ok | 16:03 |
| gmann | #topic Open Reviews | 16:03 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open | 16:03 |
| gmann | ^^ please review these, few of them are ready to vote | 16:03 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/840354 | 16:04 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/840363 | 16:04 |
| gmann | #action gmann to schedule 'release name things' discussion call *again* | 16:05 |
| gmann | let's close meeting. | 16:05 |
| gmann | thanks everyone for joining | 16:05 |
| jungleboyj | Thanks! | 16:05 |
| gmann | #endmeeting | 16:05 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu May 19 16:05:26 2022 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2022/tc.2022-05-19-15.00.html | 16:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2022/tc.2022-05-19-15.00.txt | 16:05 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2022/tc.2022-05-19-15.00.log.html | 16:05 |
| clarkb | I had one thing I wanted to call out if there was time which is https://lists.zuul-ci.org/pipermail/zuul-discuss/2022-May/001801.html | 16:05 |
| clarkb | basically some zuul config syntax will be removed in the next release. I need to run the script mentioned in that email and send email to openstack-discuss with a list of offenders | 16:05 |
| clarkb | btu we know that openstack does a fair bit of this so expect the list to be non empty | 16:06 |
| clarkb | wanted to call it out here so that the project at a high level was aware | 16:06 |
| fungi | there are a lot of projects specifying named queues in their configuration which will cease to be able to test or merge changes until they fix their configs | 16:06 |
| gmann | 'list of offenders'? I think it is more of moving to new things as old one are gone :) or we were using something not supposed to use? | 16:07 |
| gmann | but +1 on sending the list of affected things in ML | 16:07 |
| clarkb | well its the sort of change that will break CI for those projects if they aren't fixed so I don't want it to end up like the existing zuul errors list. Which is down to 64 but not 0 | 16:08 |
| gmann | clarkb: honestly saying, I am not sure how many of projects contributors or us are in zuul ML to get to know these deprecation things and to fix in advance. | 16:11 |
| fungi | yeah, and hopefully a lot of projects are already doing it the new way (the old way was deprecated 14 months ago), but it's also likely some have added queues and just cargo-culted the deprecated syntax from older projects too | 16:11 |
| gmann | we are getting it to know once it is going to be removed or error in CI | 16:11 |
| clarkb | gmann: yes, that is why I'm brining it up and planning to send emil about it today once I run the script. | 16:11 |
| fungi | gmann: clarkb reads the zuul-discuss ml and brings it up with the tc before producing a list and asking projects to fix their configs | 16:11 |
| gmann | having them in openstack-disucss ML can eb helpful to fix these in advance | 16:11 |
| fungi | seems like that was the plan | 16:11 |
| gmann | clarkb: fungi but this time is breaking change not deprecation and you have time to fix things before next release or so? | 16:12 |
| fungi | would you prefer he send those announcements to the ml before he lets the tc know in irc? | 16:12 |
| gmann | fungi: clarkb I am confused, so it is deprecation time and expect project to move to new things or is it going to break them now if they do nt fix? | 16:13 |
| fungi | he's mentioning it here the same week the removal plan was announced | 16:13 |
| fungi | so that things can be fixed in advance | 16:13 |
| gmann | ok, when is removal plan? | 16:13 |
| fungi | when zuul 7.0.0 is released is when they'll be removed | 16:13 |
| clarkb | and we probably have at least a month before that happens. But there isn't a fixed date for that release yet | 16:14 |
| clarkb | (Zuul doesn't release on a calendar schedule) | 16:14 |
| gmann | cool, I thought we removed and things broke | 16:14 |
| gmann | clarkb: +1 | 16:14 |
| gmann | sounds good plan | 16:14 |
| fungi | nope, the goal is to take care of this before things break | 16:14 |
| gmann | +1, thanks | 16:14 |
| gmann | sorry i misread that. 'release name horror story' again occupied my mind :) | 16:15 |
| fungi | the good news is that it's a very simple configuration change projects need to merge | 16:15 |
| gmann | ok | 16:15 |
| clarkb | yes its a straightforward fix, but so are many of those 64 existing zuul cofnig errors :/ | 16:15 |
| gmann | fungi: clarkb I wanted to help on fixing zuul config error more myself but could not get time. I will try if any projects does not respond or fix | 16:15 |
| gmann | please send it on ML and we will track those here too | 16:16 |
| clarkb | I did a while back | 16:17 |
| clarkb | my main concern with those errors is that many are due to project renames that were requested of the infra team | 16:17 |
| clarkb | it seems like if we don't do everything to complete a rename then it doesn't happen | 16:17 |
| gmann | i see | 16:17 |
| gmann | those can be fixed easily | 16:18 |
| clarkb | I think that if openstack is doing project renames which require a fair bit of effort on the infra side (though less now as we can better test and automate things) the least we should expect fo the projects is that they update their zuul configs | 16:18 |
| fungi | part of the problem there in the past stemmed from renames which occurred due to lack of project maintenance/interest, which also implied lack of interest in fixing the configuration errors that resulted form the renames | 16:19 |
| gmann | yeah, that should be part of project rename initiated by openstack contributor but it seem not everything is greped/searched and fixed | 16:20 |
| fungi | also in a lot of cases it's broken rename-related configs in other projects which got fixed on recent branches/master but older stable branches were ignored | 16:21 |
| fungi | (project a declares required-projects including b, b is renamed to c, a fixes required projects list in master but doesn't care about their stable branches so config error persists on stable) | 16:21 |
| gmann | yeah, It think not having good search tool for stable branch leads them to be not fixed. as codesearch on master only | 16:21 |
| fungi | however, zuul does report which branches are broken, so at least they can be cleaned up afterward | 16:22 |
| clarkb | fungi: exactly. It isn't ideal that hound can't index the stable branches but we give users more than enough tools to do this | 16:22 |
| clarkb | specifically zuul calls it out after the fact, you just have to go and fix it at that point | 16:23 |
| gmann | keeping 11 stable branch is another issue we end up ignoring such fixes in stable. I keep arguing to shrink this otherwise we will go with 20 stable branch at one time :) | 16:24 |
| clarkb | yes, it definitely adds more burden over time. | 16:24 |
| gmann | maintainer has decreased but stable branch number to maintain increased/increasing in every release | 16:25 |
| fungi | and at some point it prevents us from discontinuing support for old platforms in opendev too | 16:31 |
| fungi | and makes it hard to remove tooling we deprecated years ago | 16:31 |
| clarkb | related, I was going to check on whether or not centos7 is still used | 16:32 |
| gmann | tc-members: is coming Tuesday 24 May 15:00 UTC works for the 'release name' discussion ? | 16:32 |
| clarkb | I thought I saw tripleo saying they were off of it, but wasn't completelysure of that | 16:32 |
| dansmith | gmann: yes | 16:33 |
| gmann | elodilles: ttx ^^ meeting time. | 16:34 |
| gmann | aprice you too as there is some confusion on 'how Foundation will choose name/follow TC defined criteria or its own' that also we will discuss. you do not need to be in full meeitng but I can schedule that in the start of meeting | 16:34 |
| fungi | diablo_rojo seems to be not in irc at the moment, but she usually has a conference call at that time | 16:34 |
| fungi | since that's when we normally hold our weekly foundation staff meeting | 16:35 |
| gmann | I see, how about Tuesday 24 May 16:00 UTC ? | 16:36 |
| gmann | tc-members ttx elodilles aprice ^^ | 16:36 |
| dansmith | gmann: yes | 16:37 |
| gmann | rosmaita arne_wiebalck slaweq spotz knikolla jungleboyj ^^ | 16:39 |
| slaweq | gmann Tuesday 1600 UTC works for me | 16:43 |
| spotz | I can do the start but then will need to leave before the end | 16:44 |
| ttx | works for me | 16:48 |
| clarkb | gmann: fyi http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-May/028603.html | 17:20 |
| *** timburke__ is now known as timburke | 17:28 | |
| aprice | yes, i can make that work | 17:28 |
| elodilles | gmann: well, Nova meeting is at the same time, but if ttx will be there then I think rel-mgmt team is represented o:) | 17:59 |
| elodilles | ttx: ^^^ is it OK for you? :) | 18:00 |
| gmann | elodilles: yeah, I am also planning to skip nova meeting that week. will add things in nova meeting wiki if anything. | 18:00 |
| rosmaita | gmann: tues 24 may 16:00 utc works for me | 18:38 |
| gmann | ok, let me schedule and will update the link to join. | 18:40 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: I can make that work. | 18:43 |
| gmann | cool | 18:43 |
| gmann | jungleboyj: rosmaita need more vote/review in this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/840354 | 18:44 |
| rosmaita | ack | 18:44 |
| gmann | thanks | 18:44 |
| jungleboyj | Looking. | 18:45 |
| dansmith | gmann: will you send an invite? | 19:03 |
| gmann | dansmith: i can, is google meet ok if so my account is hard stop on 1 hr. which is good :) but in case we extend we can use pro account too | 19:04 |
| dansmith | gmann: send me a list of addresses and I'll schedule with my pro account | 19:04 |
| gmann | dansmith: you can send it to all TC members and to community I will send the link on ML | 19:06 |
| gmann | hoping these email are upto date https://governance.openstack.org/tc/#current-members | 19:06 |
| dansmith | gmann: sent, check the time | 19:10 |
| gmann | dansmith: thanks, its all correct. | 19:11 |
| knikolla | i won't be able to make it at that time | 19:29 |
| *** dasm is now known as dasm|off | 21:26 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!