15:02:01 <noonedeadpunk> #startmeeting openstack_ansible_meeting
15:02:01 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Mar 24 15:02:01 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is noonedeadpunk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:01 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:02:01 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_ansible_meeting'
15:02:06 <noonedeadpunk> #topic rollcall
15:02:07 <noonedeadpunk> o/
15:02:17 <anfimovir> hello
15:02:25 <chubinidzedr_> Hi
15:03:34 <damiandabrowski> hi!
15:04:14 <noonedeadpunk> courtesy ping jrosser
15:04:26 <noonedeadpunk> #topic CI status
15:05:09 <noonedeadpunk> Except POST_FAILURE which are apparently an infra outage, things not looking great when I look at PKI patches specifically
15:05:43 <noonedeadpunk> Though I believe, that a root cause is likely in python_venv_build for many of them
15:05:48 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-python_venv_build/+/981776
15:06:20 <noonedeadpunk> But then telemetry looks completely broken as well
15:07:22 <opendevreview> Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-os_gnocchi master: Use Direct URL syntax for pip packages  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_gnocchi/+/979877
15:07:46 <noonedeadpunk> at very least gnocchi does require usage of direct url format instead of egg already
15:08:03 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-python_venv_build/+/981148
15:08:17 <noonedeadpunk> And I think we should try to switch to this format sooner then later
15:08:35 <noonedeadpunk> patches are quite trivial, thankfully
15:09:16 <damiandabrowski> cool, thanks for pushing fixes!
15:09:21 <noonedeadpunk> I'd suggest to use the topic `osa/pep-508` to track things
15:09:53 <noonedeadpunk> but some help there would be appreciated :)
15:10:17 <noonedeadpunk> #topic releasing
15:10:41 <noonedeadpunk> so we're approaching to the coordinated release date, at which it would be amazing to have a beta release
15:11:03 <noonedeadpunk> though realistically, I don't see how we can manage to do that
15:11:25 <noonedeadpunk> anyway, I am planning to propose at very least switch to track 2026.1 branch for all projects
15:11:33 <noonedeadpunk> and "fix" the tempest plugins and versions
15:12:04 <noonedeadpunk> and try our best to get to somewhat stable state
15:12:36 <noonedeadpunk> regarding release for stable branches - we have a bunch of backports to review
15:12:43 <noonedeadpunk> it's been a while since our last release
15:12:56 <noonedeadpunk> and also 2025.2 still does not have X.1 release...
15:13:21 <noonedeadpunk> so I'd really try to do this first
15:13:24 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/parentproject:openstack/openstack-ansible+branch:%5Estable/.*+status:open+
15:13:27 <anfimovir> ++ need finish with 2025.1/2025.2
15:14:21 <noonedeadpunk> anfimovir: do you know if all "important" backports are at least done?
15:14:30 <noonedeadpunk> s/done/proposed/?\
15:14:40 <anfimovir> No, one moment..
15:15:56 <anfimovir> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_horizon/+/981720 / https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_cinder/+/980168 / https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-systemd_mount/+/979485 / https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_neutron/+/981635
15:16:08 <anfimovir> after this we can create new release for 2025.1
15:16:14 <anfimovir> For 2025.2 same...
15:16:30 <noonedeadpunk> ok, but we are not expecting anything to merge on master?
15:17:22 <anfimovir> This one - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-systemd_mount/+/971356?usp=cherry-pick
15:17:35 <anfimovir> Need back W after backport
15:17:40 <anfimovir> rebase*
15:17:54 <noonedeadpunk> aha, ok, set it
15:18:12 <noonedeadpunk> sorry, I am missing the gerrit pings quite frequently
15:18:45 <anfimovir> np :)
15:18:57 <anfimovir> @damiandabrowski may be you can find time for it
15:19:24 <damiandabrowski> sure, i'll have a look
15:19:29 <anfimovir> thank you
15:19:54 <opendevreview> Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: Remove deprecated HSTS Policies  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/981232
15:20:04 <opendevreview> Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: Remove openstack-ansible from exclude_project  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/980992
15:20:18 <NeilHanlon> ah crap... i got distracted 👀
15:20:22 <NeilHanlon> hello :) i'm here lol
15:20:31 <noonedeadpunk> Also I have recalled about old patch regarding contributors docs refactoring:
15:20:33 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/968932
15:20:41 <noonedeadpunk> NeilHanlon: heya! Nice to see you around!
15:22:33 <NeilHanlon> :) hoiwzit
15:23:00 <anfimovir> Ops, guys, sorry, forgot about... https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ansible-role-python_venv_build/+/981100
15:23:24 <noonedeadpunk> eventually, there's an interesing "backport candidate"
15:23:26 <noonedeadpunk> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_skyline/+/981149
15:23:39 <noonedeadpunk> I think we do a minor release without it ofc
15:23:54 <noonedeadpunk> but eventually skyline yarn builds are broken without it for sure
15:24:08 <noonedeadpunk> I am not sure if they fully work with it though either...
15:24:17 <anfimovir> Yes, in octavia same fix available too ;))
15:24:18 <noonedeadpunk> At least it worked for me in multi-node AIO
15:24:52 <noonedeadpunk> anfimovir: which one do you mean?
15:25:13 <noonedeadpunk> (octavia seems to be utterly broken right now)
15:25:24 <anfimovir> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_octavia/+/981135?usp=search
15:26:12 <noonedeadpunk> So, I looked at the related bug you created, and it kinda feels like that except tons of errors in logs, it's "fine"....
15:26:37 <noonedeadpunk> I think we can wait with this one as well for the next point release
15:26:45 <noonedeadpunk> otherwise we never make it :D
15:27:22 <noonedeadpunk> #topic office hours
15:27:32 <noonedeadpunk> I have one proposal to discuss
15:28:15 <noonedeadpunk> Already multiple teams have added an excalated privilege group in Gerrit, which allows users within this group to do Code Review + 2, but not set +Workflow
15:28:30 <noonedeadpunk> And I'd like to propose to add such group for OSA as well
15:28:48 <noonedeadpunk> We can name it Power Reviewers or smth....
15:29:48 <noonedeadpunk> The idea behind it - so we could have another step between regular reviewers and core team
15:30:04 <noonedeadpunk> and this way "recognize" contributions and direction of where they are going
15:30:20 <jrosser> o/ hello
15:30:21 <noonedeadpunk> to keep ppl motivated and engaged
15:31:18 <noonedeadpunk> at the same time keeping the "safeguard" of merging not ready things by absent +W
15:32:19 <opendevreview> Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible master: Migrate k8s cluster from osa ops into main tree  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible/+/975277
15:34:10 <opendevreview> Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/openstack-ansible-os_magnum master: Migrate capi driver installation from osa-ops  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-ansible-os_magnum/+/976261
15:34:56 <jrosser> agree with the extra reviewer tier
15:35:07 <jrosser> sounds good and will help us move stuff forward
15:35:12 <noonedeadpunk> NeilHanlon: damiandabrowski any opinions on that?
15:35:46 * noonedeadpunk want to engage all cores on the meeting to this topic :)
15:35:50 <damiandabrowski> fine for me
15:36:35 <jrosser> it is still though the case that we have a lot of subtlety about why things are like they are, and this takes quite the understanding
15:36:38 <jrosser> so the concept is good
15:37:06 <noonedeadpunk> yeah, we have plenty of history, and $reasons indeed
15:37:41 <noonedeadpunk> how would we name it? I see ironic had `approvers` and kolla `reviewers`
15:37:55 <noonedeadpunk> I don't like reviewers, as each reviewer is important
15:38:11 <noonedeadpunk> and I do look and value +1, so don't want to downplay that part
15:39:35 <jrosser> hardest computing problem - names :/
15:39:42 <noonedeadpunk> right :D
15:40:05 <noonedeadpunk> well... I wonder if this problem is solvable with LLMs....
15:40:13 <noonedeadpunk> Maybe they're good at least for smth...
15:41:54 <noonedeadpunk> it come up with either approvers or senior reviewers... meh
15:42:36 <noonedeadpunk> maybe approvers not that bad and will align with ironic at least...
15:43:12 <jrosser> it is descriptive too
15:43:16 <jrosser> as anyone can review
15:43:20 <noonedeadpunk> right
15:44:31 <noonedeadpunk> ok, agreed?
15:44:52 <jrosser> `approvers` is ok with me
15:45:52 <noonedeadpunk> #agreed create a new group named openstack-ansible-approvers with +2 code review privileges on top of regular reviewers role
15:47:11 <noonedeadpunk> btw
15:47:21 <noonedeadpunk> do we want to add also Backport Candidate label?
15:47:37 <noonedeadpunk> I think it would be reasonable thing to do?
15:48:05 <noonedeadpunk> *add privileges for backport candidate label to approvers?
15:53:07 <damiandabrowski> yeah, makes sense
15:53:34 <noonedeadpunk> I'm looking not in more details on Ironic ACL, and it seems that approvers there prety much == cores
15:53:52 <noonedeadpunk> and they have also `ironic-reviewers` which is seemingly what we wanna name as approvers
15:55:03 <noonedeadpunk> But I don't like naming it as reviewers...
15:55:11 <noonedeadpunk> so yeah, sticking with the decision :)
15:55:28 <noonedeadpunk> (and they do have backport candidate as well)
15:56:20 <noonedeadpunk> given that I will be asking for permissions changes
15:56:33 <noonedeadpunk> Should I also get ability to remove WIP state for Cores?
16:00:57 <damiandabrowski> you as PTL wants to remove WIP state for patches uploaded by Cores?
16:01:06 <damiandabrowski> I thought it's already possible :D don't have any problem with that
16:02:03 <noonedeadpunk> no, it's not possible
16:02:15 <noonedeadpunk> also it's not only about cores, but about any other user
16:02:53 <noonedeadpunk> so if somebody uploads a patch in a WIP state and never removes the label - nobody except of this user (or gerrit admins) have ability to remove the WIP
16:03:08 <noonedeadpunk> and I wanna grant cores ability to do that
16:03:34 <anfimovir> Yes, for cores this need.
16:04:21 <noonedeadpunk> ++
16:04:28 <noonedeadpunk> #endmeeting