| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Switch to 2023.2 testing runtime py version https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/881138 | 02:52 |
|---|---|---|
| noonedeadpunk | Hey, not sure I will be in time for the meeting, dealing with visa stuff now | 15:24 |
| JayF | Thanks for the heads up | 16:04 |
| gmann | JayF: do you want to update the agenda in wiki, date and action items I think | 17:46 |
| JayF | ah, I thought those action items looked familiar | 17:47 |
| gmann | those action items were from old meeting not from previous one | 17:47 |
| gmann | we covered them in last meeting | 17:47 |
| JayF | ack makes sense | 17:47 |
| gmann | there seems no action item from last meeting https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-05-09-17.59.html | 17:47 |
| JayF | I'm going to pull the other items we discussed last meeting | 17:47 |
| JayF | broken docs and python version support+libraries | 17:47 |
| JayF | yeah? | 17:47 |
| JayF | or do we wanna go back into that today | 17:48 |
| JayF | wdyt gmann | 17:48 |
| gmann | I think we can keep as they are not finished but can be skipped if no updates or so | 17:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | fwiw, I'm quite confused about https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-May/033683.html as I'm pretty sure it's not where we ended up with | 17:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | I wonder if we should raised that topic again or just discuss on the ML directly as agreement was reached in TC I believe. We even did voting iirc | 17:50 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: but we kept zed just open if anyone comes to maintain it. I am not worried if testing is stopped and it is all broken | 17:51 |
| JayF | basically we're not closing the door if someone shows up with a crew of maintainers and wants to take over zed | 17:51 |
| gmann | I mean that is best we can do when no mainainter for zed | 17:52 |
| fungi | yes, it's available to be maintained by anyone who shows up. we can't tell volunteers they have to fix their ci | 17:52 |
| JayF | but unless that happens, zed tripleo will waste away | 17:52 |
| gmann | yeah | 17:52 |
| dansmith | I've got some other stuff going on that will make me distracted during the meeting, FWIW | 17:55 |
| JayF | Maybe we'll just have a nice quick one then :) | 17:55 |
| JayF | tc-members: 5 minutes until tc meeting | 17:55 |
| jamespage | I have a similar challenge and need to move location part way through the hour | 17:56 |
| JayF | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue May 16 18:00:23 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is JayF. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 18:00 |
| JayF | Welcome to the weekly meeting of the technical committee. | 18:00 |
| JayF | A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct | 18:00 |
| JayF | #topic Roll Call | 18:00 |
| dansmith | o/ | 18:00 |
| JayF | o/ | 18:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:00 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:01 |
| JayF | knikolla is off this week; so I'm chairing the meeting | 18:01 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 18:01 |
| jamespage | o/ | 18:02 |
| JayF | Alright, that looks like quorum. Getting starting. | 18:02 |
| JayF | No action items from last meeting; so I'm skipping this agenda item. | 18:02 |
| JayF | #topic Gate Health Check | 18:02 |
| JayF | how is the gate looking? | 18:02 |
| spotz_ | o/ | 18:03 |
| JayF | I'll note for Ironic; our boot-from-volume job was broken by the Cinder bugfix. We're pretty sure Ironic<>Cinder is broken in any branch that had the fix backported into. We're working on a fix of our own to backport, but progress is slow. | 18:03 |
| dansmith | could be better (always) but seems pretty good lately | 18:03 |
| dansmith | JayF: the cinder cve change you mean? | 18:03 |
| JayF | YEs. | 18:03 |
| slaweq | I think that (at least in neutron) we finally get it better than last few weeks | 18:04 |
| gmann | I have not observed much failure on master | 18:04 |
| dansmith | ack, I did not know you guys consume cinder directly | 18:04 |
| dansmith | unfortunately I expect we'll see knock-on effects from that change for a while to come yet | 18:04 |
| JayF | Yes, we do. We had a conversation with fungi about how, once this is all over, we'd like to have some kind of follow up meeting/conversation/etc | 18:04 |
| gmann | wallaby ceph job is broken and requried os-brick fix is backported but as wallaby is EM we cannot release this lib | 18:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 18:05 |
| JayF | gmann: so does that mean wallaby ceph support has to go away? No way around it? | 18:05 |
| dansmith | no there are ways around it, | 18:05 |
| spotz_ | Could someone just apply the patch themselves? | 18:05 |
| dansmith | but it's EM and usually not fixing jobs when they break is how we handle those things | 18:05 |
| gmann | I will try if that work with fix released version or master os-brick in job | 18:05 |
| gmann | spotz_: its job take the version from upper constraints | 18:06 |
| fungi | alternatively, stable/wallaby of os-brick could be installed instead of installing the release from pypi | 18:06 |
| gmann | but I will try if any way we can mention the fix release version in job and if that is being picked | 18:06 |
| dansmith | fungi: you mean the git tree | 18:06 |
| fungi | just make it a required-project in the job and it should end up getting installed from source of the corresponding branch | 18:07 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:07 |
| gmann | required-project and override branch with stable/wallaby | 18:07 |
| JayF | That's how we test changes in EM branches of libraries like sushy in Ironic | 18:07 |
| JayF | As unfortunate as it is that we have specific items we're complaining about with gate this week; it's better than the "everything is flakey due to X" reports that are sometimes common. These all sound fixable :) | 18:07 |
| JayF | Is there anything further about the gate or should we move on? | 18:08 |
| JayF | Moving on. | 18:08 |
| JayF | #topic Broken docs due to inconsistent naming | 18:08 |
| JayF | It's unclear if there's anything left to discuss on this topic. Does anyone have something to share? | 18:09 |
| fungi | dod the proposed fixes correct it? | 18:10 |
| fungi | s/dod/did/ | 18:10 |
| gmann | it is not merged yet, there are few review comments on that | 18:10 |
| fungi | #link https://docs.openstack.org/2023.1.antelope/user/ | 18:10 |
| fungi | that still looks pretty empty | 18:10 |
| JayF | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/881290 | 18:11 |
| JayF | is the proposed fix, it has negative feedback to be addressed | 18:11 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:11 |
| JayF | Given it's Kristi's patch; I'd assume his time off has put this on pause. | 18:11 |
| fungi | got it. so still under review | 18:11 |
| JayF | I'm going to move on then | 18:11 |
| JayF | #topic Schedule of removing support for Python versions by libraries - how it should align with coordinated releases (tooz case) | 18:12 |
| JayF | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/882165 | 18:12 |
| gmann | we have some comment on proposed PTI, noonedeadpunk not sure if you got time to check those? | 18:12 |
| JayF | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/882154 | 18:12 |
| JayF | are both still under review, I encourage TC members to review them | 18:13 |
| gmann | I think we can discuss it here if noonedeadpunk is ok ? | 18:13 |
| gmann | I feel we should make py3.8 r any future runtime same for everyone not just for lib | 18:13 |
| gmann | otherwise it will be difficult to coordinate and keep it working in the way we want | 18:14 |
| JayF | I think there's value in having some of those discussions async in Gerrit, but if we think we can make a quick breakthrough here that's likely good | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, we can do that, but there was a valid point that we should have a way to deprecate old python versions overall | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | and coordinate this somehow. Having that as community goal might not be enough, as some will still need to drop support first | 18:15 |
| gmann | deprecated ? | 18:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | *remove | 18:15 |
| gmann | k | 18:15 |
| gmann | goal can give us benefit of planning right like one or two people planning what should drop first and what at end | 18:16 |
| JayF | It seems to me we have two separate, related problems: 1) unwinding the breakages that hurt bobcat development (this is done?) and 2) figuring out how to remove python versions moving forward | 18:16 |
| opendevreview | Jeremy Stanley proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Attempt at fixing broken docs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/881290 | 18:16 |
| JayF | #1 is urgent, #2 needs to be solved by end-of-cycle... yeah? | 18:16 |
| gmann | 1 is done as we have py38 voting job now | 18:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | it's done, but not documented | 18:17 |
| JayF | Ok, so the problems remaining need addressing this cycle, but we don't have to treat it urgently. That's nice. | 18:17 |
| gmann | I think 2nd also urgent as not all project are up to dated on our discussion so having our pti updated is important | 18:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah | 18:17 |
| JayF | Well, we can update the state of the art for Bobcat | 18:18 |
| JayF | without solving future project management problems (which is essentially what the python retirement is) | 18:18 |
| JayF | yeah? | 18:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | I will check comments on the patch shortly and will have another round of thinking what we can do there | 18:18 |
| gmann | we do not have py38 in bobcat testing runtime so any project can argue to drop it that is why updating PTI is also important | 18:18 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: +1 thanks | 18:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | as again, I'm not sure we should oblige everyone to have 3.8 support when we don't support any platform that has it natively | 18:19 |
| JayF | I look forward to seeing the updates in the patch. | 18:19 |
| JayF | It seems like that's where things are going, so I'm going to move the meeting along if so? | 18:19 |
| gmann | I am ok with that if we are able to clearly list what all projects to keep and who all can drop. lib is not defined term here | 18:19 |
| JayF | Moving on. | 18:20 |
| JayF | #topic Bare recheck state | 18:20 |
| JayF | How are rechecks looking like? | 18:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | gmann: ++ | 18:20 |
| JayF | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/recheck-weekly-summary | 18:20 |
| slaweq | all good with rechecks | 18:21 |
| slaweq | numbers are pretty ok | 18:21 |
| JayF | Thanks for aggregating that data! | 18:21 |
| JayF | Anything else before we move on? | 18:21 |
| slaweq | nothing from me | 18:21 |
| JayF | #topic Open Reviews | 18:22 |
| JayF | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open | 18:22 |
| JayF | We have a lot of governance patches up for review right now; please find time to review and vote and/or comment. | 18:22 |
| slaweq | I will try to go through them tomorrow morning | 18:23 |
| JayF | That's the last item on the agenda. Is there any comments about open reviews, or anything else that needs to be addressed in the TC meeting before we close it for today? | 18:23 |
| gmann | I think many of them are depends-on on project config changes | 18:23 |
| JayF | I'm going to close up the meeting. | 18:25 |
| JayF | thank you everyone for your participation | 18:25 |
| JayF | #endmeeting | 18:25 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue May 16 18:25:09 2023 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:25 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-05-16-18.00.html | 18:25 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-05-16-18.00.txt | 18:25 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-05-16-18.00.log.html | 18:25 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:25 |
| slaweq | good night :) | 18:25 |
| gmann | thanks JayF, everyone | 18:25 |
| JayF | o/ np | 18:25 |
| fungi | noonedeadpunk: after rereading the update for tripleo, i think i see the concern you're raising. see if what i called out specifically in my reply summarizes it | 18:26 |
| spotz_ | thanks JayF | 18:26 |
| fungi | most of the message was about downstream testing in rdo/delorean which doesn't really impact upstream, but dropping the zed zuul jobs from the openstack/tripleo-ci project would | 18:26 |
| fungi | i had skimmed past that bit near the end of the message the first time i read through it | 18:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: it was also about phrase "there should be no more patches submitted for stable/zed TripleO repos, and any backports will go..." | 18:27 |
| fungi | if those developers aren't maintaining the newer branches (by their own admission) then they shouldn't be removing jobs from those branches | 18:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | But yes, what you wrote is basically what concerned me the most | 18:29 |
| fungi | there's no strict requirement that community members also push patches to newer branches though when they're pushing them for extended maintenance branches | 18:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | sure not, but prohibiting anyone to be able to do so is also wrong | 18:29 |
| fungi | if someone's interested in forward-porting patches from stable/wallaby to later branches then they can do that themselves (and also work on fixing ci jobs for those later branches) | 18:30 |
| fungi | i didn't read it as a prohibition, just a poorly-worded version of "the people who were doing that before won't be doing it any longer" | 18:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | Yes, but statement "there should be no more patches submitted for stable/zed" is wrong then, isn't it? | 18:30 |
| JayF | I read an implied (by us) at the end of that message | 18:30 |
| JayF | but you're right it should have been made explicit | 18:31 |
| fungi | it depends on how strictly you interpret their use of the english language in that sentence | 18:31 |
| fungi | i agree it was vague, but i interpreted it as not being a prohibition simply because they're not in a position to prohibit anything | 18:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, along with fully dropping CI... | 18:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | or patch proposing that at least - that sounded quite strong | 18:31 |
| fungi | i do agree that altering maintained stable branches to remove jobs is out of bounds | 18:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | I'm not sure they're understanding that they're not in position to prohibit that | 18:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | As I feel their perception to not care about 3 out of 4 opens | 18:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | I could be wrong though | 18:33 |
| JayF | Yes they are-ish. They are DPL. If the people who are DPL wanna remove those jobs, they can. | 18:33 |
| JayF | This is why it's such a dubious thing. We (TC) explicitly enabled a group that disclaimed interest in tripleo stable/zed to have control over it. | 18:33 |
| JayF | Rightly or wrongly, that's how we delegated. | 18:34 |
| JayF | We can un-delegate, if we so desire, but right now I think we're worrying about the rights of some mythical new-tripleo-contributor that doesn't exist. | 18:34 |
| fungi | i think what we're arguing for is that if these people said they're no longer maintaining tripleo, the tc can step in and remove their control over the project in gerrit (and can grant them exclusive control over stable/wallaby approvals if that's still desired) | 18:34 |
| fungi | i'm dubious as to why they would care that there are still jobs configured for stable/zed if they're claiming they no longer have any interest in doing anything with stable/zed anyway | 18:35 |
| JayF | That's maybe a good question to ask directly on the lsit. | 18:35 |
| JayF | *list | 18:35 |
| fungi | maybe the crux of this is that the project-template being altered in 882759 is applied to master-branch-only deliverables they're still maintaining (because they're used by stable/wallaby branches of other deliverables), and they don't want to have to fix stable/zed of those branched deliverables to unblock changes for the master-branch-only deliverables | 18:37 |
| JayF | I suspect that, or some similar technical-fiddliness is the motivation, not trying to salt the field if someone comes separately | 18:38 |
| JayF | might be worthwhile to explicitly say "ignoring stable/zed, and that your changes break it, is OK" | 18:38 |
| JayF | (afaict, it is, yeah?) | 18:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | yes, that would be way better phrasing and intention | 18:43 |
| opendevreview | Jeremy Stanley proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Attempt at fixing broken docs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/881290 | 19:03 |
| opendevreview | Jeremy Stanley proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Attempt at fixing broken docs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/881290 | 19:41 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!