| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 00:32 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 01:42 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 03:45 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 04:01 | |
| *** bauzas- is now known as bauzas | 04:34 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 05:34 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 05:59 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 06:15 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 06:31 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 07:00 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 07:41 | |
| opendevreview | Slawek Kaplonski proposed openstack/governance master: Update criteria for the inactive projects to become active again https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/921500 | 07:42 |
|---|---|---|
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 08:24 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 08:55 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 09:23 | |
| opendevreview | Erno Kuvaja proposed openstack/governance master: Update correct appointment cycles for Erno Kuvaja https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/921929 | 09:43 |
| SvenKieske | question regarding: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20220210-release-cadence-adjustment.html | 11:57 |
| SvenKieske | this reads contradictory to me "pgrades from “not-SLURP” to “not-SLURP” will not be tested nor required. On a given “not-SLURP” release, the only upgrade path will be to the following release (which would be a “SLURP”). This is unchanged from today." | 11:57 |
| SvenKieske | this is only true for all releases after slurp was effective imho. also "this is unchanged from today" doesn't make any sense, because "today" here can only refer to the status where there where only non slurp releases | 11:59 |
| SvenKieske | okay but I also had a misunderstanding regarding slurp cadence, so the above are rather nitpicks, thx. | 12:03 |
| fungi | SvenKieske: i agree that using resolutions as documentation is misleading because 1. they're proclamations that need to be read in the context of the time they were published, and 2. you have to check all subsequent resolutions to see if they modify or supplant the one you're looking at | 12:14 |
| SvenKieske | yeah I was also asking myself if that is the canonical documentation for slurp releases, is it? this was one of the first google results at least. :D | 12:15 |
| SvenKieske | I mean it was good enough as I guess it answered my question, so I think it's decent enough :) | 12:15 |
| fungi | SvenKieske: probably https://releases.openstack.org/#releases-with-skip-level-upgrade-release-process-slurp needs to be expanded to reflect ongoing activity rather than just linking to the resolution | 12:16 |
| *** tosky_ is now known as tosky | 12:28 | |
| fungi | or link to something more contemporary in the project teams guide | 12:36 |
| SvenKieske | I'm grateful that the TC is rather well documented in it's decisions (at least what I read so far). better docs are always welcome but often hard to come by :) | 12:39 |
| gmann | well, this resolution is one of the very well detailed documented one. yes we can move this to doc but referring the detail about SLURP process does not harm | 16:46 |
| gmann | SvenKieske: "This is unchanged from today" means we did not test the skip level upgrade any time, means we only tested the following release only and not the N-2 or more older | 16:47 |
| gmann | that section highlight that "not-SLURP to not-SLURP upgrade testing (in current scenario it is N-2-> N for not-SLURP) and in the time before SLURP model it is same as N-2 > N upgrade testing" which were not tested before also and now also. | 16:49 |
| gmann | hope I am able to explain "This is unchanged from today" meaning in that section context | 16:50 |
| gmann | but moving this resolution content to p-t-g is not bad idea where we can evolve the explanation in more details | 16:52 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 16:52 |
| SvenKieske | not sure I understood that better :D, but I will re-read it later as I'm out of office for now, my mental capacity for today seems to be depleted :) | 16:52 |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 17:07 | |
| fungi | gmann: i think the confusion arises where tc members read "today" as the time they were voting to approve the resolution, while end users (operators) who are directed to it as documentation assume "today" means the day they're reading the document | 17:13 |
| JayF | ++ I find this true in a lot of docs, not just TC resolutions. Often when we reuse specs and documentation it ends up being strangely shaped | 17:13 |
| gmann | fungi: I think that is not the point from SvenKieske concern. ""this is unchanged from today" doesn't make any sense, because "today" here can only refer to the status where there where only non slurp releases okay but I also had a misunderstanding regarding slurp cadence, so the above are rather nitpicks, thx." | 17:15 |
| dansmith | yep, but also TC resolutions are usually about changing something from how it currently works to how it should work, so it's hard to not use language like that | 17:15 |
| gmann | I am reading his concern as "today was referred as the time before SLURP model where every release was not-slurp and we used to test the *not-SLURP to not-SLURP* but this section says we do not test the *not-SLURP to not-SLURP*" | 17:16 |
| fungi | yeah, i'm not suggesting how resolutions are written should change, just that resolutions make poor end-user documentation of things | 17:16 |
| dansmith | fungi: right, it's sort of like having to determine the state of a repo by reading all the commits in order :) | 17:17 |
| gmann | sure, I am moving this to p-t-g and we can improve the explanation if needed like we did for DPL model where we always referred the resolution and endup improve the process/details by amending the resolution | 17:18 |
| fungi | and also places like the releases.o.o site should then link to the guide rather than the resolution | 17:18 |
| fungi | thanks! | 17:18 |
| fungi | in other news, https://openinfra.dev/blog/ai-generated-content-policy is likely worth a revisit for those who weren't following the related discussions closely | 17:22 |
| fungi | in particular the link to the actual policy the board approved last week | 17:23 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Move release cadence adjustment resolution to p-t-g https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/921978 | 17:57 |
| gmann | tc-members ^^ | 17:57 |
| gmann | fungi: SvenKieske ^^ | 17:58 |
| gmann | feel free to propose the further change on top of it for any improvement/explanation needed | 17:58 |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 18:29 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 18:46 | |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Fixing the validate-legacy script https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/920848 | 19:01 |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 19:51 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 20:21 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 20:42 | |
| *** zbitter is now known as zaneb | 21:36 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 22:52 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!