14:00:06 #startmeeting glance 14:00:07 Meeting started Thu Apr 1 14:00:06 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is abhishekk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:10 The meeting name has been set to 'glance' 14:00:12 #topic roll call 14:00:28 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda 14:00:29 o/ 14:00:30 o/ 14:00:31 o/ 14:00:49 lets wait couple of minutes for others to join 14:01:12 Short agenda today as well 14:01:14 o/ 14:02:16 cool, rosmaita might join soon, lets start 14:02:21 o/ 14:02:28 :D 14:02:51 #topic Updates 14:02:54 Xena PTG is almost 3 weeks away 14:03:05 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/xena-ptg-glance-planning 14:03:23 Please add your name to the list of attendants if you are planning to attend the same 14:03:38 also add the topics of your interest for the discussion 14:04:22 After next weeks meeting I am going to finalize the topics and allot day/time for discussion 14:04:36 moving ahead 14:04:38 #topic release/periodic jobs update 14:04:48 We are good on release front 14:05:13 Periodic job, one failure in week related to oslo-tips job, will have a look at that after the meeting 14:05:24 everything else is green 14:05:45 Moving ahead 14:05:51 #topic Glance bug tracking 14:06:01 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/glance-bug-tracker 14:06:19 I have added some bugs to above tracker which are good to close as won't fix 14:06:31 I'd also like to call attention to this: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/783668 14:06:44 as well as some of the bugs which has patches submitted and need reviews 14:07:12 yep, kindly review the above patch as well 14:07:13 we're still hitting that infrequently in zuul, so it'd be good to get that in so we can start looking for that log message 14:08:20 I will be checking store and client bugs as well (mostly early next week) 14:09:08 Moving to last topic in the list 14:09:14 #topic Guidelines for reviewers 14:09:41 I have tried to put something together as a guidelines for reviewers (mostly for us) 14:09:51 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/783893 14:10:03 Would like to have your opinion/suggestions for the same 14:11:05 If you have any questions/concerns/suggestions we can discuss on the review itself 14:11:18 that's all for today from me 14:11:26 moving to Open discussion 14:11:29 #topic Open discussion 14:12:01 * abhishekk we get here really fast 14:12:19 i'll take a look at the review guidelines 14:12:32 I have nothing atm. Will have a look of that as well 14:12:34 Can we Ninja close https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-glanceclient/+bug/1844298 ? As Brian said, this is no longer relevant 14:12:35 Launchpad bug 1844298 in Glance Client "python-glanceclient doesn't implement find() method" [Undecided,New] 14:12:55 Just for the update, tomorrow will be holiday in most of the countries 14:13:11 Monday may also be a holiday in a lot of countries 14:13:31 Oh yeah, I'll be back Tue tomorrow and Mon off here 14:13:38 ack 14:13:50 jokke, cool, longest weekend :D 14:14:04 Steap, will have a look at the bug 14:14:49 Steap, good to close that bug 14:14:52 i guess i should have just closed that bug as invalid or irrelevant or something 14:15:21 the life of that bug is amazing 14:15:25 it was valid 14:15:28 I just remembered that we have a patch on master to drop lower constraints job 14:15:29 then we waited 6 months 14:15:36 it became invalid 14:15:39 and then we waited 6 months to close it :D 14:15:44 :P 14:15:44 bugfix by procrastination! 14:15:54 haha 14:15:56 THe OSC devs may start to think we don't like their project 14:16:24 is there any OSC dev around, I haven't seen for long 14:16:31 I don't know about the rest of ye, but I don't :P And it's nothing personal against them, just the project 14:17:22 back to lower constraints job, so are we intending to keep those for master branch ? 14:17:40 I don't think that most projects are expecting to keep the l-c jobs on master, 14:17:53 because as identified, breaking or not, they don't provide anything useful 14:18:13 so by leaving them we're just doing extra CI work until they break, and then we'll likely remove them so.. not much point 14:18:24 that is what concluded in last TC meeting I guess 14:18:52 Well they do. They keep the lower boundary of our requirements in check. Which nothing else is testing 14:20:01 Ok, I will check the usefulness of it and decide accordingly 14:20:32 but if we intend to keep it then we need to remember to drop it from stable branch as soon as we hit the release 14:20:55 they test that our own internal stuff runs with some arbitrary set of pins 14:21:15 they don't test that our service actually works with that, or that it actually works with all the other services at that boundary, especially if the others are dropping it 14:21:30 a related question is how to maintain the minima in the requirements file 14:21:34 I'm not sure what the point of dropping it on stable is and not master 14:22:03 well, it's sort of a sanity check 14:22:13 which i think is jokke's point 14:22:21 kind of 14:23:47 it's a sanity check that a small fraction of our least-relevant tests run in isolation with those packages installed 14:24:04 most of those tests don't even use those libraries since they're largely mock-type tests 14:24:04 mhm, if we don't even test that the lower boundaries of our requirements will install together, we just should remove those as well and keep requirements as dependency + blacklist 14:24:18 jokke: yeah I think that's the point 14:24:32 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/782768/2/lower-constraints.txt 14:25:14 I'm happy that I'm not responsible for packaging for any distro if we go there ;) 14:25:45 our packaging people have said they don't care about or even look at this right? 14:26:05 yep, i think so 14:26:35 IIRC zigo was quite heavily against dropping the indication what the expected bottom is 14:26:52 yes, the one voice that caused this whole thing to be drawn out, 14:26:57 despite nobody else caring 14:27:13 and even still, I don't think that it actually feeds anything in debian, it's just that he thinks it's nice to see 14:27:40 we dropped the file from stable here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/782769 14:27:57 so if we don't merge the master thing, the lower-constraints.txt is going to come back to life when X becomes stable/X 14:28:00 that makes no sense 14:29:26 so either like other projects we get rid of it on master or we should have bot job to remove it as soon as we cut a stable branch 14:29:43 I am inclining towards former point 14:29:50 since no distros consume master, that makes it pretty useless :) 14:30:08 point 14:30:09 meaning, having l-c on master, and then deleting it for all stable branches 14:31:09 well after release, but sure. how about removing unit & functional tests too as no-one deploys them either ;P 14:31:54 those are for developers to make sure the changes they made are not breaking and working as per expected 14:32:15 and the functional tests _do_ run the regular requirements 14:32:23 But yeah, my whole point is we should remove the low boundaries from requirements.txt too 14:32:39 dropping l-c testing on stable also means that if we were to backport something that required something higher than the lower limit, we wouldn't even know it was broken 14:32:49 if we don't test that they even install together 14:34:44 Ok, I guess we should let other reviewers express their thoughts on review for the same 14:35:13 I have nothing else for today 14:35:34 Steap, rosmaita anything else ? 14:36:32 I take that as no 14:36:58 wishing Happy Easter in advance to all those who are celebrating 14:37:13 have a good one everyone o/ 14:37:15 Have nice weekend 14:37:21 Thank you all 14:38:00 #endmeeting