13:05:08 <damani[m]> #startmeeting oslo
13:05:08 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Feb 26 13:05:08 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is damani[m]. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:05:08 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:05:08 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'oslo'
13:05:33 <damani[m]> hberaud, tkajinam, JayF, gtema, meeting time
13:05:55 <gtema> o/
13:06:14 <damani[m]> #topic oslo needs to define its leadership for the Flamingo/2025.2 release cycle
13:07:27 <damani[m]> we need to define and do we want to continue with the DPL model?
13:07:48 <hberaud[m]> o/
13:08:34 <tkajinam> damani[m], I voted for DPL model but it was moved to PTL model because we haven't heard from you
13:08:52 <gtema> in Keystone we are going to evaluate switch to DPL, but in general it doesn't really look to me that the model does not do what it intended
13:08:54 <tkajinam> so the decision may be pretty dependent on you unless someone else will take the PTL role
13:08:55 <damani[m]> yes my bad
13:09:04 <tkajinam> gtema, yeah
13:09:11 <damani[m]> i will do an update with them
13:09:13 <damani[m]> i can do it
13:09:24 <damani[m]> i'm on pto until next thursday
13:09:48 <damani[m]> but i will update and check today with gmann
13:09:52 <tkajinam> current DPL is different from the past PTL model and more similar to "multiple PTLs"
13:10:35 <damani[m]> yes
13:11:25 <damani[m]> something else about that topic?
13:11:33 <hberaud[m]> yes
13:11:55 <damani[m]> hberaud, ok
13:13:07 <hberaud[m]> FYI I'm currently mentoring kacperrh  about release management, and we are currently studying together how the release liaison works etc... Kacper will give us help about release management in oslo.
13:13:30 <damani[m]> hberaud, nice, sounds good
13:14:02 <hberaud[m]> this do not impact the DPL/PTL decision but I think it is good to highlight the fact that we will get help on the release side of oslo
13:14:15 <damani[m]> yes it's awesome
13:14:22 <damani[m]> thanks a lot
13:14:30 <hberaud[m]> you are welcome
13:14:32 <damani[m]> and kacperrh welcome
13:15:16 <hberaud[m]> but for now we are in the studying period
13:15:30 <damani[m]> ok
13:15:54 <hberaud[m]> That's all for me concerning this topic
13:16:00 <damani[m]> perfect
13:16:17 <damani[m]> someone else want add something?
13:16:41 <gouthamr> hey there, yes - so what will happen now?
13:16:58 <damani[m]> gouthamr, what do you mean?
13:17:56 <gouthamr> what’s the next course of action - I see you folks don’t mind either leadership model… so I’m confused what the proposal is
13:18:23 <damani[m]> i will check with gmann a bit later today
13:18:43 <gouthamr> check with gmann about?
13:18:55 <tkajinam> gouthamr, my own preference is keeping DPL model. because OpenStack is no longer my main focus I really hope someones else on standby along with me
13:19:21 <tkajinam> I think the point is that we haven't heard which damani[m] prefers here. PTL or DPL ?
13:19:34 <damani[m]> DPL is good
13:19:48 <tkajinam> If you prefer PTL then we can propose restoring the previous liaison model
13:19:57 <hberaud[m]> +1 for the DPL model, but as I'm not no longer an oslo liaison I'll accept all the decisions takes by my teammates
13:20:03 <tkajinam> as long as gmann is ok with continuing the tact sig
13:20:15 <tkajinam> tact liaison, it might be
13:20:23 <damani[m]> yes
13:20:26 <gouthamr> great, I think I’ve seen you state that here multiple times :) but I feel like things were getting lost in translation…
13:21:00 <damani[m]> ok
13:21:02 <tkajinam> now these are recorded in the meeting log so may not be lost :-)
13:21:09 <gouthamr> damani[m]: sorry you’re having to respond when you’re away.. but, since this affects releases, could you please +1 the release patch that’s currently open?
13:21:40 <tkajinam> I think gouthamr is talking about the ones I added to the agenda
13:21:52 <hberaud[m]> so, DPL for everyone?
13:21:52 <tkajinam> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/epoxy-oslo-meeting-tracking#L47
13:22:26 <damani[m]> gouthamr, done for release
13:22:26 <gtema> i would also prefer dpl
13:22:42 <tkajinam> unless someone else will volunteer for PTL ... and as we have seen no nomination during the period I think nobody will.
13:23:06 <hberaud[m]> we be good to decide the decision now once and for all
13:23:20 <tkajinam> yup
13:23:31 <damani[m]> yes like i said i'm also good for DPL model :)
13:23:35 <hberaud[m]> DPL +1
13:23:35 <gouthamr> good stuff, can one of you then propose a governance patch?
13:24:01 <damani[m]> ok
13:24:05 <gouthamr> or would you like help doing that?
13:24:06 <tkajinam> I can propose it
13:24:18 <hberaud[m]> thanks
13:24:58 <hberaud[m]> tkajinam: I prefer to let you doing that as I won't volunteer for liaison against this series
13:25:03 <gouthamr> thank you!
13:25:17 <hberaud[m]> s/against/again/
13:26:00 <damani[m]> ok
13:26:15 <damani[m]> i can be liaison
13:26:24 <hberaud[m]> good
13:26:36 <gouthamr> thanks for the acknowledgment on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942681
13:26:46 <damani[m]> and i would like if it's ok for you guys
13:26:56 <gouthamr> tkajinam: was there any other release patch pending?
13:27:11 <tkajinam> gouthamr, not at the moment
13:27:14 <damani[m]> oslo.db
13:27:27 <tkajinam> damani[m], one thing. Do you mind being a security liaison as well ?
13:27:39 <tkajinam> it has been Ben Nemec but I think he is no longer around the community
13:27:44 <damani[m]> i can do it yes
13:27:48 <tkajinam> ok
13:27:50 <tkajinam> thx
13:28:09 <gouthamr> the problem here seems to be that damani[m] alone can trigger the “PTL Approved” vote; and that’s because tkajinam was not listed as the release liaison on the releases repo - this seems like an oversight we should fix as soon as the new DPL is in place
13:28:34 <gouthamr> ^ (about why the release patch was stuck)
13:28:41 <damani[m]> i can still be liasion on the release
13:28:44 <tkajinam> ah, ok
13:28:50 <tkajinam> I can probably propose that change as well
13:28:55 <damani[m]> but i supposed we can be mutiple people no?
13:29:02 <damani[m]> if like i'm on pto
13:29:13 <gouthamr> yes, having multiple people is a good thing
13:29:14 <hberaud[m]> AFAIK yes
13:29:36 <damani[m]> ok perfect
13:29:40 <gouthamr> but, there was a discrepancy between the release liaisons listed in the governance repo vs the releases repo
13:29:52 <damani[m]> ah ok
13:30:20 <gouthamr> https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/commit/976b3efc8135a7ba9bcac14f2490f2162027e675/data/release_liaisons.yaml#L112-L115
13:30:45 <damani[m]> but so i think the idea for the release is we are both liaisons tkajinam and I
13:31:09 <gouthamr> tkajinam: thanks for proposing a fix to that, and if you add a depends-on to your governance/DPL patch, I’ll shepherd these patches in
13:31:24 <gouthamr> damani[m]: +1 thank you
13:31:39 <damani[m]> so to resume
13:32:04 <damani[m]> we will do a patch in governace for update the DPL model right?
13:32:11 <damani[m]> tkajinam, you will do it?
13:32:34 <tkajinam> I've already proposed the patches
13:32:38 <damani[m]> i can be the liaisons for the release, security and tc if that works
13:32:41 <damani[m]> ok
13:32:46 <damani[m]> you too fast :)
13:32:48 <damani[m]> checking now
13:32:53 <tkajinam> damani[m], https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/942793/1/reference/projects.yaml
13:33:22 <damani[m]> tkajinam, i need your secret :)
13:33:52 <damani[m]> ok
13:34:03 <tkajinam> and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942794
13:34:08 <gouthamr> good stuff, and thank you damani[m] tkajinam
13:34:17 <tkajinam> damani[m], can you add your vote on that governance patch
13:34:27 <tkajinam> ok you already did it
13:34:39 <damani[m]> yes done
13:34:57 <tkajinam> I think we are ok now and we'll wait for the update from TC
13:35:01 <tkajinam> gouthamr, thanks for your help :-)
13:35:10 <hberaud[m]> \o/
13:35:17 <damani[m]> and done for the release
13:35:26 <damani[m]> patch
13:35:26 <gouthamr> hberaud[m]: super stoked to hear about the intern you’re mentoring.. when they’re ready, we can edit the governance again and add them as a liaison wherever we would like
13:35:31 <damani[m]> perfect
13:35:48 <hberaud[m]> sure
13:35:50 <gouthamr> tkajinam: ack, I’ll follow up on gerrit
13:35:56 <damani[m]> so now i think we are done with that topic as said tkajinam and waiting the tc update
13:36:05 <gouthamr> yes
13:36:25 <gouthamr> please continue with your agenda :D /me goes back to sleep
13:36:53 <hberaud[m]> good night
13:37:03 <hberaud[m]> (part 2)
13:37:04 <damani[m]> do you want i add you in the ping list of that meeting?
13:37:13 <tkajinam> I know it's too early morning for you
13:37:22 <damani[m]> gouthamr, thanks a lot and good night
13:37:29 <tkajinam> damani[m], maybe not and we can ping him when needed
13:37:39 <damani[m]> ok
13:37:43 <damani[m]> sounds good
13:37:43 <tkajinam> when we have the "late slot" meeting, I guess
13:38:00 <damani[m]> ok
13:38:02 <damani[m]> #topic threading backend for oslo.service
13:38:04 <gouthamr> ++ I will attend atleast one of these meetings:)
13:38:35 <damani[m]> so locally i have something but i have some tests issues, but i will even push with wip tag
13:38:54 <damani[m]> and if i can try to fix the test sometime today
13:39:21 <damani[m]> tkajinam, thanks a lot for the fix in olso.service and sorry for the forget
13:39:38 <hberaud[m]> maybe the solution is to split your patch into isolated parts, no?
13:39:58 <damani[m]> i will push something after the meeting
13:40:15 <damani[m]> the implementation i have made as far
13:40:38 <hberaud[m]> this way you will be less messed by tests failures, and the reviews will be more easy for us
13:40:54 <damani[m]> ok
13:40:57 <damani[m]> i will check
13:41:00 <damani[m]> after the meeting
13:41:21 <tkajinam> so as we are very late at the cycle do you agree with pushing that work to Epoxy ?
13:41:24 <hberaud[m]> by example one patch by migrated modules
13:41:41 <tkajinam> sorry. Flamingo, I mean
13:41:47 <tkajinam> given the fact that we already passed library freeze I don't think we can get it in for Epoxy really
13:42:09 <tkajinam> yeah splitting the change to smaller steps would be helpful for reviewers
13:42:18 <hberaud[m]> periodic_tasks, systemd, etc...
13:42:33 <tkajinam> but at the same time I'd suggest submitting the full series so that we can get the full view
13:42:55 <tkajinam> if you are unsure about the strategy then you can submit the current version and we can discuss how we split it
13:43:01 <hberaud[m]> yeah we need all the series, but splitted
13:43:38 <damani[m]> tkajinam, yes too late for epoxy and sorry for that
13:44:19 <damani[m]> and yes about the splitting ok
13:46:35 <damani[m]> ok i will reorganize my work locally and start to send patch
13:46:47 <damani[m]> something else about that topic?
13:47:04 <hberaud[m]> branches are not yet cut so in all the case if you submit it against master and if we do not merge it before the branch cut, your patches will land with flamingo
13:47:18 <tkajinam> damani[m], you don't have to be blocked for long for that re-organization work
13:47:44 <tkajinam> damani[m], we can discuss how we organize it after seeing the current plan
13:48:00 <tkajinam> that's what I've been saying but I'll leave the decision to you
13:48:17 <tkajinam> s/the current plan/the current implementation/ I mean
13:48:31 <damani[m]> ok
13:48:35 <tkajinam> hberaud[m], yeah you are correct
13:49:00 <damani[m]> ok
13:49:05 <damani[m]> something else?
13:49:22 <tkajinam> there is one patch to deprecate eventlet thing which missed the release and I was wondering if we want to get that in with exception
13:49:22 <tkajinam> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/taskflow/+/940884
13:49:46 <hberaud[m]> yes, it would be good to have it within Epoxy
13:49:50 <tkajinam> but given the fact that we may not be able to remove eventlet support till 2026.1 (because the one in oslo.service is not deprecated in 2025.1) I think we don't have to really prioritize it
13:50:21 <hberaud[m]> but taskflow is not an independent deliverable?
13:50:41 <tkajinam> hberaud[m], no taskflow is not independent
13:51:03 <hberaud[m]> hm https://github.com/openstack/releases/blob/master/deliverables/_independent/taskflow.yaml
13:51:07 <tkajinam> tooz is independent but taskflow follows cycles
13:51:19 <tkajinam> it was switched back from independent model some time ago afair
13:51:37 <hberaud[m]> ah yes exact
13:51:39 <hberaud[m]> https://github.com/openstack/releases/blob/master/deliverables/epoxy/taskflow.yaml
13:52:08 <hberaud[m]> so as you prefer
13:52:32 <hberaud[m]> I'd personaly advocate to prioritize it, but if you think that's not necessary then...
13:52:42 <damani[m]> yes as you prefer
13:52:59 <damani[m]> for me it can be good to have it soon as possible
13:53:15 <damani[m]> but at the same i think that can wait
13:53:17 <damani[m]> ok
13:53:33 <damani[m]> #topic open discussion
13:53:43 <damani[m]> something else you would like to talk today?
13:54:01 <tkajinam> it really depends on anyone who WILL work on getting an exception
13:54:12 <hberaud[m]> I can do that
13:54:13 <tkajinam> nothing else from me
13:54:18 <hberaud[m]> no
13:54:26 <tkajinam> ok then can damani[m] merge that change ?
13:54:34 <tkajinam> I mean add your vote
13:54:55 <hberaud[m]> I'll send an RFE on the mailing list
13:55:08 <tkajinam> thx
13:55:14 <damani[m]> done
13:55:17 <damani[m]> for the vote
13:55:24 <damani[m]> ok
13:55:39 <damani[m]> thanks a lot hberaud to take in the mail
13:55:44 <damani[m]> ok something else?
13:56:09 <tkajinam> I hope we don't detect any other regressions :-)
13:56:38 <hberaud[m]> nothing on my end
13:56:46 <tkajinam> again, nothing else from me.
13:56:47 <damani[m]> hope the same
13:56:47 <hberaud[m]> knock on the wood
13:56:55 <damani[m]> ok
13:56:55 <tkajinam> :-P
13:57:13 <damani[m]> it seems we are done, it was a very good and productive meeting today
13:57:19 <damani[m]> thanks a lot everyone
13:57:23 <damani[m]> and see you soon
13:57:39 <hberaud[m]> damani: thank you
13:57:44 <damani[m]> #endmeeting