| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 03:23 | |
| *** thuvh1 is now known as thuvh | 03:47 | |
| thuvh | hi, i create merge quest for release in openstack/releases and make monasca active https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/923466 | 03:53 |
|---|---|---|
| thuvh | but, with release, there are some errors related to git tag of monasca repo | 03:54 |
| thuvh | could anyone guide me the flow | 03:54 |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 04:37 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 14:30 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 15:17 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 15:38 | |
| gmann | I think frickler has good points on governance change and those should be resolved before we mark it Active | 16:06 |
| gmann | dansmith: any news on watcher things? As it is m-2 week, we should mark it Inactive unless you are planning to release it? | 16:07 |
| dansmith | gmann: unfortunately not given everything going on. however, the board call about these things seemed to indicate there may be some more interest there, and: | 16:08 |
| dansmith | gmann: as far as I can tell after my fixes it seems to be working as expected and passes its tests, even in tempest, which seem like decent coverage | 16:08 |
| dansmith | so given the test state, if people are willing, I'd keep it active and release it this time since we know interest is at least pending | 16:09 |
| gmann | dansmith: ok, I am fine with the plan. I think the only concerning thing is it is leaderless. | 16:10 |
| dansmith | ack, well, if the concern is a "leader" for zuul config errors, test fails, etc I can offer to be the contact person if nothing else | 16:12 |
| fungi | the leader question also applies to who's going to propose/acknowledge release requests for it, who's going to respond to reports of potential security vulnerabilities in it... | 16:13 |
| fungi | basically the same things we lay out for liaisons in the dpl model | 16:14 |
| gmann | dansmith: ++, as gate is green and you have release plan I think either we can appoint you as PTL there or move it to DPL model with you as liaison ? | 16:14 |
| dansmith | fungi: yeah, I don't know that I would really be qualified to address security things, but presumably we're on the hook for the last cycle's release for that anyway, so it probably doesn't really change the landscape to keep it right? | 16:14 |
| gmann | seeing more people might come to help (also as leader) in future I think that can be good path | 16:15 |
| fungi | dansmith: right, it's basically that if there are vulnerabilities reported and nobody to address them, it's criteria for removing the project (like we saw with murano) | 16:16 |
| dansmith | fungi: yeah, well, as long as we retain that right even if I'm on the hook to make that call, then I guess that's okay | 16:17 |
| gmann | yes, that is applicable irrespective of any project have leader or not | 16:17 |
| fungi | and as a community we try really hard not to get into that situation, murano was a rather embarrassing case | 16:17 |
| dansmith | gmann: so whatever you think dpl vs ptl .. I definitely don't need more paperwork to do, but if it's going to be mostly point me at a thing to click approve on for the releases I think it's worth buying another cycle | 16:18 |
| dansmith | also this one is non-SLURP right? | 16:18 |
| fungi | the upshot of the murano event was that we'd rather not continue to include a project in openstack if there's nobody willing to fix vulnerabilities in it, rather than waiting until we find out that we need to rip it out | 16:18 |
| gmann | dansmith: yes non-SLURP | 16:18 |
| JayF | fungi++ | 16:20 |
| gmann | dansmith: I think DPL can be good in this situation and anyways we need to reset the DPL state also in next cycle so it will be a good temporary handling of situation and you can decide if you want to continue or someone else can take up leadership role | 16:21 |
| dansmith | ack | 16:21 |
| dansmith | potentially relevant to this and other things, gouthamr I'm out next week starting tuesday to try and recuperate after the last few weeks | 16:22 |
| gmann | dansmith: do you want to push governance change otherwise I can do | 16:22 |
| gmann | dansmith: also, I think m-2 release is pending by today? if it is not released yet | 16:23 |
| dansmith | gmann: can you point me to an example to copy? | 16:24 |
| gmann | dansmith: this one is latest one https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914911 | 16:24 |
| gmann | dansmith: one extra thing in this is ' tc-liaison' to add, you can add my name or your in that, example https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/917516/4/reference/projects.yaml#1999 | 16:26 |
| gmann | dansmith: I rebased my watcher-tempest-plugin change and if that pass, i can handle its release next week (tempest plugins are with cycle-with-intermediary so not hurry to release them) | 16:29 |
| dansmith | gmann: remove appointed: zed? | 16:30 |
| dansmith | I guess not, looks like I leave that | 16:31 |
| gmann | dansmith: yeah, just for history we can keep it. hope that will be confusing for DPL projects but let's leave for now | 16:31 |
| opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/governance master: Transition watcher project to DPL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/923583 | 16:33 |
| dansmith | okay see if that looks right | 16:33 |
| gmann | dansmith: yes, thanks | 16:33 |
| gmann | dansmith: I pinged elodilles about m-2 release in #openstack-release channel | 16:35 |
| dansmith | ack just joined (No history) | 16:36 |
| gmann | dansmith: one small fix needed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/923583/1/reference/projects.yaml#2641 | 17:32 |
| opendevreview | Dan Smith proposed openstack/governance master: Transition watcher project to DPL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/923583 | 17:33 |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 17:39 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 20:44 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!