| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/governance master: Retire heat-cfnclient: Retire Repository from the Governance Repository https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/905821 | 08:11 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/governance master: Retire heat-cfnclient: Retire Repository from the Governance Repository https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/905821 | 08:45 |
| opendevreview | Aisha Redl-Sherwood proposed openstack/governance master: Retire heat-cfnclient: Retire Repository from the Governance Repository https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/905821 | 08:54 |
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/governance master: Retire heat-cfnclient: Retire Repository from the Governance Repository https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/905821 | 09:20 |
| tkajinam | I don't know why that change was updated and made noop. if that account repeats that then we should probably ban it as a spam | 09:24 |
| tkajinam | it might be a mistake but I'll watch activity by that account | 09:24 |
| frickler | tkajinam: yes, I'm seeing this as likely mistake for now since it seems to have been one of their first actions at all, but if it repeats, please let infra-root in #opendev know about it | 09:31 |
| tkajinam | frickler, yeah. I'll do so if needed | 09:33 |
| tkajinam | hope it's not needed. I searched reviews by that account and saw it's a very new one. | 09:33 |
| gokhanisi | thanks JayF, slaweq we prefer continue under OpenStack namespace. we will make gates happy. we will also add new features. we are working with my teammate @hasanacar | 12:29 |
| *** tosky_ is now known as tosky | 12:50 | |
| frickler | gokhanisi: to be honest, I'm not sure whether this is still possible at this point, there is much more work involved than just "make gates happy". it seems that you both are completely lacking in prior experience in working in openstack upstream projects, also I only see a single patch for monasca-api so far, which is still failing. there are many more repos in the monasca project, a large backlog | 12:56 |
| frickler | of patches, zuul config errors to be fixed, ... | 12:56 |
| frickler | also just doing this for a single cycle won't be enough, there would need to be a long term commitment and some way of assuring that those plans will not change again soon due to changes in business policies | 12:57 |
| frickler | and certainly there will be no release of monasca in the 2024.1 cycle, since the deadline for that has passed | 12:59 |
| gokhanisi | frickler, we are working on it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/monasca-api/+/905652 . there are minor bugs and I hope it will be ready next week. there are minor bugs left. we have tested in our local environment. | 13:05 |
| gokhanisi | unfortunately because of internal works, we didn't make any contributions previously, But we have already added new features to monasca in our environment but we couldn't contribute them bacause of internal works. | 13:09 |
| gokhanisi | after making gate happy and adding new features, we can discuss again | 13:10 |
| gmann | gokhanisi: as frickler mentioned, it is not just making gate happy or maintaining for 1 cycle or so. it is more of long term and consistent commitment to maintain the projects. And this is not the first time we are discussing about Monasca retirement, I remember we had same discussion a few cycle back also. and almost in every cycle we struggle to find any leader for this project and need to appoint one at the end. | 18:09 |
| gmann | having option of continue its maintenance in different namespace give same open source model to it and you can still develop/use opendev tooling. and there is always option to re-apply it to OpenStack official project once it going in good maintenance and satisfy the requirement to be OpenStack projects. | 18:12 |
| JayF | I was going to link gokhanisi to the retirement change request up for Monasca, but it's not been put up yet. Once it's up, a comment on there is the best place to express a desire for it to not be retired. However, I'll note three TC members have already expressed a concern about changing course this late. | 19:09 |
| JayF | There is very little downside to continuing development in another namespace; this will give you a good opportunity to collaborate with the other interested parties and get Monasca back in good shape. As GMann says, if later, it's a healthy project and community and you still would like to return to OpenStack namespace we can discuss it -- but I suspect you'll find that being in your own namespace may not be a downside at all. | 19:11 |
| gmann | yeah | 19:11 |
| opendevreview | Brian Rosmaita proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Update docs for Unmaintained https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/897505 | 23:28 |
| opendevreview | Brian Rosmaita proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Update docs for Unmaintained https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/897505 | 23:30 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!