| jgilaber | dviroel, I've opened https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/995942 to release the stable branches PTAL when you have some time | 12:40 |
|---|---|---|
| dviroel | ack , thanks jgilaber | 12:40 |
| jgilaber | I've treated all three as bug fix releases | 12:40 |
| jgilaber | altough I had doubts with flamingo, considering we fixed a considerable amount of bugs | 12:40 |
| dviroel | don't they need to be in 3 different patches? or it is acceptable this way? | 12:42 |
| dviroel | I think that is fine, there are other changes like that | 12:47 |
| jgilaber | I saw some doing at all once, but not sure | 12:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | they can be a singel patch | 13:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | most pepoel do ti as asperte but i tend to do it as one if im doign multiple branches | 13:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | the first time i did that the release team were surpsied it works because its not actuly docuemtned but ya its a thing | 13:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: with that said if there are no changes you shoudl not be doing a milesoen 2 release | 13:23 |
| dviroel | yeah, so epoxy has the same hash | 13:24 |
| dviroel | no fixes, no need for a new release | 13:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep | 13:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | that proably means we still need to focus on merging some of the expy backports | 13:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | i just have not had time to look at that | 13:26 |
| dviroel | https://github.com/openstack/watcher/commits/stable/2025.1/ | 13:27 |
| dviroel | I think that is the hash that needs update | 13:27 |
| dviroel | https://github.com/openstack/watcher/commit/d6750e40f8434f75493eda13e69bbc47b315e6d6 | 13:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | ah yep | 13:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: there is a script to gerneate this by the way | 13:27 |
| dviroel | right | 13:28 |
| dviroel | new-release? | 13:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | yep via tox | 13:28 |
| dviroel | https://releases.openstack.org/reference/using.html#using-new-release-command | 13:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | tox -e venv -- new-release ... | 13:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | that will automtaclly check the sha for you and grab the latest | 13:28 |
| sean-k-mooney | then you ment to do a quick sumary of the change sinc e the previous sha when creating the commit message | 13:29 |
| * dviroel hates how gerrit ui is slow sometimes | 13:29 | |
| sean-k-mooney | i think there are some load issues its not just you | 13:30 |
| jgilaber | hmm didn't know that, let me try | 14:16 |
| jgilaber | on the epoxy branch, the hash is indeed wrong, looks like I made a mistake when copying the hash from github | 14:20 |
| jgilaber | but there is a new commit | 14:20 |
| sean-k-mooney | like this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/987926 or https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/958468 | 14:21 |
| jgilaber | I've asked claude to write a new commit message with more info and will update the patch commit message and with the right hash for epoxy | 14:25 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: Avoid logging messaging transport URLs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/995960 | 14:36 |
| sean-k-mooney | jgilaber: dviroel ^ can you give that priorty when you have time, we will need to wait for ci in anycase | 14:37 |
| jgilaber | sure, will what happens earlier ci reporting or gerrit UI loading the patch :) | 14:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | we may also want to include that in the satable branch relese | 14:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | :) i dont know that could be a close one | 14:38 |
| sean-k-mooney | it could go either way | 14:39 |
| opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/watcher master: Avoid logging messaging transport URLs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/995960 | 14:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | forgot to add Closes-Bug | 14:46 |
| dviroel | ack | 14:48 |
| jgilaber | I added my +2 the patch looks correct | 14:48 |
| dviroel | ack, maas is deprecated and I will propose the removal this release | 14:50 |
| dviroel | but it important to backport | 14:50 |
| jgilaber | agreed, I'll probably be out by the time CI finishes, but I think it would make sense if we merged the backports with only your approval dviroel | 14:52 |
| jgilaber | plus sean-k-mooney implicit +2 as the owner of the patch | 14:52 |
| jgilaber | I'll -W the release patch for now to get this in once it's merged | 14:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | ack i think we can backprot it on monday and to the releases then on tusday | 14:54 |
| sean-k-mooney | we could also jsut proceed with the release. its good to backport but not cirtical to hold the release for | 14:55 |
| sean-k-mooney | i suspsect however that most of the release team (at least the US contingent) are takeing an extneded weekend | 14:55 |
| dviroel | right | 14:56 |
| dviroel | I will be here for a while, i will W+1 later | 14:56 |
| dviroel | if gerrit permits | 15:09 |
| dviroel | btw, i proposed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/995886 yesterday, to add Review Priority label | 15:20 |
| dviroel | we may just need to define what we want to express in the label as +1 and +2 | 15:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: ya i think those values look reasonabel | 15:21 |
| dviroel | i copied what most of the projects defined | 15:21 |
| dviroel | nova is different right | 15:21 |
| sean-k-mooney | im not sure the submitable part are correct | 15:22 |
| dviroel | humm | 15:22 |
| sean-k-mooney | that looks like your trying to allow use to force submit things if we set prioryt ture | 15:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | i ned to look that up but i dont recall havign to set that up | 15:23 |
| sean-k-mooney | oh it is the same | 15:24 |
| dviroel | nova is different yes | 15:24 |
| dviroel | no? | 15:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | no nova is the saem https://github.com/openstack/project-config/blob/master/gerrit/acls/openstack/nova.config#L38-L41 | 15:24 |
| dviroel | cinder is different | 15:24 |
| dviroel | https://opendev.org/openstack/project-config/src/branch/master/gerrit/acls/openstack/cinder.config | 15:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok those were added later | 15:24 |
| sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/project-config/commit/dda3b6098ead3028379afb1ab1b0de9155726b70 | 15:25 |
| sean-k-mooney | ok so what that is doing | 15:26 |
| sean-k-mooney | is saying that Review-Priority is never applabel to determingn if we can submit (merge) the patch | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | and regradess fo the value sumbition is valid | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel: so ya your change is correct | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | it just wasnt requried wehn i made my change | 15:27 |
| sean-k-mooney | one ocmment on the +2 nameing but looks ok to me overall | 15:30 |
| dviroel | ack, it is not trivial to understand, but yeah look correct | 15:31 |
| dviroel | ack sean-k-mooney - that's the feedback that I was waiting | 15:31 |
| dviroel | lets see what others think | 15:31 |
| *** dviroel is now known as dviroel_lunch | 15:32 | |
| sean-k-mooney | dviroel_lunch: i woudl prefer to avoid predefinign the time we use +2 in the lable iteslf so we can evovle that as desired without changign the acls | 15:33 |
| dviroel_lunch | yeah, i see more as an example when to use it, but other may understand that they should be only used in the context provided. So yeah, we can be more generic in the meaning | 16:43 |
| *** dviroel_lunch is now known as dviroel | 16:52 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!