| opendevreview | Grzegorz Grasza proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: docs: add guidelines for tool-generated contributions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/984061 | 09:37 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Grzegorz Grasza proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: docs: add guidelines for tool-generated contributions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/984061 | 09:40 |
| opendevreview | Slawek Kaplonski proposed openstack/election master: Add configuration for 2027.1/"I" elections https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/988238 | 10:48 |
| opendevreview | Slawek Kaplonski proposed openstack/election master: Add placeholder for candidates for the 2027.1 election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/988239 | 10:48 |
| gouthamr | tc-members: a gentle reminder that the weekly meeting will be hosted here in ~55 minutes | 16:04 |
| gouthamr | the agenda is here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda | 16:04 |
| bauzas | gouthamr: I will probably need to drop, I have to go errand | 16:05 |
| gouthamr | ack bauzas | 16:06 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: install-guide: Add 2026.1 (Gazpacho) release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/983534 | 16:28 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 17:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue May 12 17:01:06 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:01 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:01 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 17:01 |
| dansmith | o/ | 17:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 17:02 |
| dansmith | light crowd today | 17:02 |
| gouthamr | yeah | 17:02 |
| gouthamr | courtesy-ping: tonyb, frickler, spotz[m], cardoe, mnasiadka | 17:03 |
| gouthamr | noted absence: b a u z a s | 17:03 |
| cardoe | o/ | 17:03 |
| frickler | \o | 17:03 |
| gouthamr | let's get started.. | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #topic Last Week's Action Items | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | we had to resolve the ansible SIG's leadership today/this week | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/NOK24Z4VKHH4XCVD5A7NYKZT3NH3WMDJ/ (Proposal to revive the Ansible SIG) | 17:06 |
| mnasiadka | O/ | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: o/ in time | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | no update on the thread besides cardoe expressing support | 17:06 |
| cardoe | So mnasiadka got added with permissions to merge patches but we don't have permissions to cut releases. | 17:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | I support it as well, but I didn't reply, as text was well written ) | 17:06 |
| cardoe | People are chomping at the bit to get releases into ansible-galaxy so they can install the updates. | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | oh, was there a discussion that happened elsewhere? | 17:07 |
| cardoe | No. Just multiple people asking on patches and in IRC when we'll cut a new release. | 17:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | well. they technically don't have to use galaxy | 17:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | and can install from git by SHA.... | 17:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | so it should not be real blocker, unless they expect it to be part of the `Ansible` package | 17:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | talking about which - there were some updates to collection requirements to remain part of the Ansible | 17:08 |
| noonedeadpunk | * packaged Ansible | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | okay, cardoe and mnasiadka have been added to the core group for ACO: | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/ansible-collections-openstack-core,members (ansible-collections-openstack-core) | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | its worth recording this, but, did this go sideways? | 17:09 |
| mnasiadka | Yes, but we’re still not in the -release group - so can’t release anything | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | oh | 17:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | talking about releasing | 17:09 |
| cardoe | Someone added me so I added mnasiadka. | 17:10 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/ansible-collections-openstack-release,members (ansible-collections-openstack-release) | 17:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | it's been also couple of years in Zuul to get galaxy publish role to merge | 17:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul-jobs/+/899230 | 17:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | as today it's in-repo playbooks, which I think would be highly beneficial to be generally available | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | ack, good stuff | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | okay, can we talk through the next steps then? | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: could you submit the governance change to update the SIG leadership? | 17:11 |
| cardoe | We can look at switching to that. | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | as SIG leaders then, you'll can rejig the gerrit memberships as you please | 17:12 |
| mnasiadka | clarkb: would you be willing to have a look in the zuul-jobs patch linked by noonedeadpunk? | 17:12 |
| mnasiadka | (I have no rights in that repository) | 17:12 |
| clarkb | I guess? its honestly not a big priority for me (opendev doesn't use ansible galaxy at all | 17:12 |
| mnasiadka | gouthamr: will do | 17:12 |
| clarkb | we just install the meta package for ansible which includes most of that or install things from source when it doesn't iirc | 17:13 |
| fungi | in this case it's about projects being able to publish their modules to galaxy, if memory serves | 17:13 |
| gouthamr | thank you | 17:13 |
| gouthamr | #agreed: lazy consensus on Ansible SIG leadership change has been reached | 17:13 |
| gouthamr | #action: mnasiadka will update the governance repo to reflect the new ansible SIG leadership | 17:13 |
| clarkb | and I don't see that changing because galaxy and I don't get along | 17:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | correct | 17:13 |
| clarkb | they change their api every 6 months and I gave up | 17:13 |
| clarkb | fungi: right but as an individual I don't care much if I never install things from the platform and if the platform is difficult to use | 17:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | I am also not using galaxy to install, but would love to publish things there | 17:13 |
| clarkb | (I personally don't think anyone should use galaxy) | 17:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | for those who do use it | 17:14 |
| clarkb | we tried multiple times to integrate with galaxy and in the middle of doing so they made breaking backward incompatbile changes | 17:14 |
| fungi | clarkb: right, zuul's inbuilt capability to share roles makes galaxy a lot less necessary for consumption by zuul jobs, so it's hard to find zuul-jobs repo reviewers to look at the proposed publication change | 17:14 |
| clarkb | after ~2 or 3 times of that happening I basically stopped caring about anything galaxy | 17:14 |
| fungi | i suppose it could go in openstack-zuul-jobs instead | 17:15 |
| gouthamr | ^ wouldn't that be a better place for this? | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | I can propose it there | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | I mean. depends? | 17:15 |
| gouthamr | right now, our concern is openstack-ansible, and potentially kolla-ansible, ACO etc | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | As a zuul user I'd love to have some "existing" tool to publish to galaxy anyway | 17:15 |
| frickler | that doesn't change the set of (non-)interested core reviewers much, though | 17:15 |
| clarkb | I don't think its a problem to have in zuul-jobs. The problem is finding people with time to care | 17:15 |
| fungi | proposing it to openstack-zuul-jobs increases the chances that i'll feel comfortable single-core approving it, worst case | 17:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | I can propose there as well | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | yeah, smaller blast radius if the API stability is our concern | 17:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | patch was proposed 3 years ago and I checked recently and it still should work | 17:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | as it's relying on `ansible-galaxy` binary for API interaction... | 17:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | anyway | 17:17 |
| clarkb | right if you use their tool then it will probably contineu to work | 17:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | I can propose to openstack-zuul-jobs | 17:18 |
| clarkb | trying to proxy galaxy or integrate with other tools is painful | 17:18 |
| gouthamr | ah, maybe they fix that more keenly | 17:18 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 17:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | no, you should not do this indeed.... | 17:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | they don't care about api stability... | 17:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | but that is still what you have to do if you want to publish things for community | 17:18 |
| gouthamr | we're kinda derailing here.. still on action items :) | 17:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | or in case of openstack collections - if you want it to be included in Ansible packaging | 17:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | we chatted a lot of RBAC stuff in the past week, and gmaan's threads are getting some attention.. unsure if there's anything to update for this week? | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | as i mentioned in the TC's summary, we're not considering the "global reader/auditor" thing a part of the existing SRBAC goal.. and, if the "enforce_scope" patching can be dropped, we're at a position to call this goal done | 17:20 |
| cardoe | Yeah we can make a new goal | 17:21 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 17:21 |
| gmaan | yeah, new goal is fine but we should not extend (keep extending) the current goal scope | 17:21 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 17:21 |
| cardoe | There's some traction and interest in the use case we proposed on the mailing list. | 17:21 |
| gmaan | I am more focusing on removal of enforce_scope. and adding it in the projects meeting agenda so that we can meet the target deadline | 17:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | I agree that global reader is not part of the current goal | 17:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | despite how badly I want it to be | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | next up, Venus retirement and Vitrage deprecation | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | i reviewed the changes noonedeadpunk had for these, think we need some more work.. and in case of venus, we've a chicken-and-egg problem where we can't merge the repository nullification changes ourselves | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | we were chatting here briefly that the TC initiated cleanups like this one should provide the TC access to the repos.. | 17:24 |
| gouthamr | or, we'll have to rely on infra cores to help with the cleanup, like frickler did for monasca ones | 17:25 |
| gmaan | that is done via acl update I think that is first step in retirement | 17:25 |
| gouthamr | gmaan: not currently, we set the RETIRED.config ACL only after the governance change has merged.. | 17:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | so I guess it's the last step... | 17:25 |
| gmaan | I think we always did it as part of 'Step 1: End Project Gating' | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | But what stops us from merging governance change? | 17:26 |
| gouthamr | it's failing because we validate that the repos you're retiring are "empty" | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | doh | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think then we need to move up ACL change | 17:27 |
| fungi | i guess the changes to empty the master branch are in need of someone with approval permission? | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | yes | 17:27 |
| gmaan | for example this one. we had no core to merge the repo cleanup https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/919348 | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | gmaan: ack, so a process deviation where you used common sense/executive decision :D | 17:27 |
| fungi | reordering things could solve that, yes | 17:27 |
| gmaan | yes, if no core available then TC takes the ACL and proceed | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | yes, would solve this. | 17:27 |
| gmaan | if cores are there then we go with normal process | 17:28 |
| gouthamr | okay, worth a minor doc update so we don't get tripped up like this | 17:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | I thnk if cores are there then we usually don't retire | 17:28 |
| gmaan | i did not update it in doc (my bad) but we followed the same in past for all such cases. | 17:28 |
| gmaan | noonedeadpunk: :) yeah | 17:28 |
| gmaan | this is another example https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/919376 | 17:29 |
| gouthamr | awesome, there's precedence.. thanks for sharing | 17:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, I will update the doc and move ACL to a separate patch | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | thank you noonedeadpunk | 17:30 |
| gmaan | noonedeadpunk: thanks | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | anything else regarding this deprecation and retirement? | 17:30 |
| * noonedeadpunk has finalized family matter which took last couple of month of my time | 17:30 | |
| gouthamr | hope that means you inherited a bunch of money | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | unfortunatelly not.... | 17:31 |
| gouthamr | next action item was about AI | 17:31 |
| * gouthamr sorry couldn't help | 17:31 | |
| fungi | how meta | 17:31 |
| gouthamr | TaCT SIG has "agentic-workflows" now.. | 17:32 |
| gouthamr | AGENTS.md goal proposal was abandoned | 17:32 |
| gouthamr | bauzas may register #openstack-agentic-workflows soon, so keep the chatter going there | 17:32 |
| fungi | the irc channel, specifically | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | yes | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | we also merged the PQC popup team, there's no dedicated IRC channel here.. but, mharley[m] is the TC liaison if you need someone to direct questions to | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | that's all the action items that i was tracking, were you working on anything else to share? | 17:34 |
| gouthamr | #topic A check on gate health | 17:34 |
| gouthamr | how has the gate been faring.. any updates to share? | 17:35 |
| fungi | a change merged today that expects release notes jobs to use a "releasenotes" tox env now | 17:38 |
| fungi | i guess keep an eye out for any related job failures, though stephenfin seemed fairly confident those should be few and far between | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | +1 ty | 17:39 |
| clarkb | Resolute test nodes exist now too. But there isn't mirror content yet so they are a bit awkward to use | 17:39 |
| clarkb | hopefully that changes soon | 17:39 |
| fungi | oh, and the ubuntu-ports mirrors (used for arm jobs) have been stale for about 1.5 weeks due to exceeding quota, but looks like they should be back on track any minute now | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | ++ great, i was curious with the chatter on #opendev:opendev.org | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | when is the gerrit update planned? | 17:41 |
| fungi | i don't think we've announced an exact date yet | 17:42 |
| mharley[m] | Hello, hello. It seems I was summoned. 😊 | 17:42 |
| mharley[m] | That’s right, gouthamr. I received the instructions on how to create the channel and I’ll do that this week (my homework). 😉 | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | ack fungi | 17:42 |
| clarkb | my goal is late May early June. Probably more like early June at this rate given everything else I've been distracted by recently | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | good stuff, ty | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | alright, let's move to | 17:43 |
| gouthamr | #topic Open Discussion | 17:43 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: regarding python-tempestconf, was the decision to leave it under "openinfra" and let the existing maintainers continue there? | 17:44 |
| fungi | i'm not aware of any urgent requirement for it to vacate that namespace | 17:45 |
| gouthamr | ack, good to know | 17:45 |
| fungi | mainly we wanted to retire the refstack and interop repos that are no longer used | 17:46 |
| gouthamr | i contacted the Red Hat folks privately to test the waters. they continue to use/maintain it and don't have opinions on where it should live.. this group intersects little with "openstack-qa".. | 17:46 |
| fungi | i didn't include python-tempestconf with the others because i understood it was still being used and maintained by people outside its original mandate | 17:46 |
| gouthamr | yes | 17:46 |
| gouthamr | there's still some misconception that "x/" can be used... | 17:47 |
| gouthamr | i was going to point them to: https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/infra-manual/+/958571 | 17:47 |
| gouthamr | but, that's moot if we don't need to change the namespace | 17:47 |
| gouthamr | frickler: gentle nudge regarding the resolution to get project cores AC status | 17:49 |
| fungi | gouthamr: also https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/956592 "Do not allow new x/ namespace projects" | 17:50 |
| gouthamr | ah nice | 17:50 |
| gouthamr | wow there are 582 already in that graveyard | 17:50 |
| mnasiadka | gouthamr: I think then we need a new group in Gerrit config (instead of refstack) and a new acl only for that repository? (re python-tempestconf) | 17:51 |
| gouthamr | i'm unsure what the "group" property is used for | 17:52 |
| mnasiadka | fungi: are groups in project-config for gerritbot? | 17:54 |
| fungi | "group" when storyboard is in use defines the storyboard project group to include it in. "group" when launchpad is in use sets the corresponding project name in lp | 17:55 |
| mnasiadka | ah | 17:55 |
| mnasiadka | So we would need to create a new one for python-tempestconf? | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/912 | 17:56 |
| gouthamr | can't tell if the maintainers are using this, last bug there was nearly a year ago | 17:57 |
| mnasiadka | Ok, I have no clue how storyboard works | 17:57 |
| gouthamr | yeah, i don't know how to find out the group there either :D | 17:58 |
| mnasiadka | Well, there’s project groups on the menu bar on the left | 17:58 |
| mnasiadka | https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project_group/refstack | 17:59 |
| gouthamr | oh, you're right | 17:59 |
| fungi | yeah, groups are just a many:many mapping sort of useful as aggregate dashboards | 17:59 |
| fungi | a project can belong to more than one group | 17:59 |
| fungi | or none | 17:59 |
| * gouthamr wonders now how storyboard cleanup happens | 18:00 | |
| fungi | but also the maintainers could decide to switch to doing defect and task tracking somewhere else | 18:00 |
| fungi | storyboard cleanup is someone asking me to delete things in the database, at the moment | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | yeah, it's good to let them know.. or you'll just have orphaned resources | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | fungi: haha, okay, good to know | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | i suspect launchpad is the same way, if everything was handed over correctly to ~openstack-administrators | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | i wrote this and could use some reviews: | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/987433 (Add project tracker management guide) | 18:01 |
| mnasiadka | Um, so what’s the plan? Can we just set groups: to python-tempestconf and that will map to the project in storyboard? | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | +1 i like that approach | 18:02 |
| fungi | you would just drop the groups list entirely | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | sorry, but we are two minutes over.. will wrap up this meeting.. please continue the chatter | 18:02 |
| fungi | groups in storyboard are for grouping multiple related projects | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | thank you all for participating | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue May 12 18:03:02 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-05-12-17.01.html | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-05-12-17.01.txt | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-05-12-17.01.log.html | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | fungi: ack, so ungrouped projects can exist.. because like in this case, it doesn't make sense to have a 1-1 project-group | 18:03 |
| fungi | right | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | good stuff, ty for doing the heavy-lifting here mnasiadka | 18:04 |
| mnasiadka | Ok, I’ll drop the group and create a dedicated all for python-tempestconf | 18:08 |
| mnasiadka | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/962116 | 18:08 |
| mnasiadka | I added javascript unit tests in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstackdocstheme/+/987166 just like hberaud wanted, if anybody else can review it - it would be nice | 18:34 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: Community support - update until 2026.1 (Gazpacho) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/983536 | 18:35 |
| opendevreview | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/security-doc master: Updated from openstack-manuals https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/988327 | 18:38 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/security-doc master: Updated from openstack-manuals https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/security-doc/+/988327 | 19:02 |
| cardoe | So not really sure where or how to best share but something else I'm driving towards is small "reference" containers if you will via OpenStack Helm.. https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-helm-images/src/commit/977951e9969442e2945d0589beb6fd0a22d077d1/ironic/Dockerfile right now there's more to that than what I'm looking for but more work coming | 23:09 |
| cardoe | I'd like to eventually only install dependencies that the project calls out in their bindep.txt | 23:10 |
| cardoe | stephenfin's work to support PEP-735 really makes the ability to do light weight stuff with uv. | 23:11 |
| clarkb | cardoe: that is similiar to opendev's python-builder and python-base container images | 23:11 |
| cardoe | Well I should check that out an collaborate there. | 23:11 |
| clarkb | python-builder installs the bindep deps for building the wheels then it does an install of all the wheels to build them. Then you run python-base which installs the previously built wheels and any runtime bindep deps | 23:12 |
| clarkb | the idea is to separate the build process from the actual final product to avoid polluting your containers with useless layers | 23:12 |
| cardoe | We run all of our stuff in k8s so I've been looking to make a devstack like but via k8s (or really k3s / kind). | 23:12 |
| clarkb | and there is a script called assemble that drives the magic | 23:13 |
| cardoe | But exactly what you said is my goal... less and smaller layers. | 23:13 |
| cardoe | kolla's got a lot of great machinery for deployment so that's a different target than me. | 23:14 |
| clarkb | https://opendev.org/opendev/system-config/src/branch/master/docker/python-builder/scripts/assemble you can see it in use with a non trivial project in zuul: https://opendev.org/zuul/zuul/src/branch/master/Dockerfile | 23:14 |
| clarkb | (note zuul does extra stuff for reasons, but you shouldn't need that if you can express what you want via bindep and python deps) | 23:15 |
| cardoe | nice | 23:15 |
| clarkb | those reasons being installing ansible to dedicated venvs and some random tools like skopeo | 23:16 |
| fungi | cardoe: out of curiosity, how does what you want to build differ from loci's goals? | 23:19 |
| fungi | what you're describing sounds like what loci was trying to be, but since i gather that's what osh was using already i'm probably missing some subtle distinction | 23:20 |
| cardoe | I mean its loci | 23:20 |
| fungi | oh! you're looking to improve loci then | 23:21 |
| cardoe | They wanted to do the containers in OpenStack-helm-images instead of there. | 23:21 |
| * cardoe shrugs. | 23:22 | |
| cardoe | But yes loci but then using that for devstack-like | 23:23 |
| cardoe | clarkb: where do you push the containers? | 23:34 |
| fungi | cardoe: https://quay.io/organization/opendevorg | 23:43 |
| fungi | assuming you mean the container images | 23:44 |
| cardoe | Yes | 23:44 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!