17:00:13 #startmeeting releaseteam 17:00:15 Meeting started Thu Mar 11 17:00:13 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is hberaud. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:16 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:16 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/wallaby-relmgt-tracking Agenda 17:00:18 The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' 17:00:20 Ping list: ttx armstrong elod damani 17:00:32 o/ 17:00:33 o/ 17:01:03 We're way down on line 411 now. 17:01:25 Will just wait a couple minutes for folks. 17:01:31 ok 17:04:02 #topic Review task completion 17:04:13 Process any remaining library freeze exception => Done 17:04:22 Early in the week, email openstack-discuss list to remind PTLs that cycle-highlights are due this week => Done 17:04:43 Propose autoreleases for cycle-with-intermediary client libraries which had commits that have not been included in a release => Patches need validations 17:04:48 https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%2522cwi-client-final%2522+(status:open) 17:04:53 https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22wallaby-no-change-libs%22+(status:open) 17:06:01 elod, ttx: feel free to validate those accepted by PTLs and that needs a final +2 ^ 17:06:03 o/ 17:06:09 o/ 17:06:19 hberaud: ack 17:07:06 concerning those we missed ( https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22wallaby-no-change-libs%22+(status:open) ) do we want to wait for PTLs/liaisons? 17:07:43 Since no significant changes have been merged yet maybe we could simply force them 17:07:52 Any opinion? 17:08:18 I'd wait until Monday yes 17:08:47 elod: it would be nice to merge those who have been approved today 17:09:06 ttx: it's okay with me 17:09:09 @ttx +1 17:09:26 prometheanfire: FYI ^ 17:09:39 hberaud: ack, too :) 17:09:43 we will wait until monday for a couple of patches 17:10:48 prometheanfire: I think that if requirements updates aren't in these lists who should refuse them 17:11:11 s/who/we 17:11:41 ok next task from last week 17:12:28 Evaluate any libraries that did not have any change merged over the cycle => partially done, @ttx: do you want to add something? 17:12:40 https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22move-to-independent%22+(status:open) 17:12:45 no that's under control I think 17:13:05 I think we can approve the oslo part 17:13:16 any volunteer to push the final button? 17:14:29 Ok I'll approve oslo 17:15:57 I don't expect that the oslo part will receive new comments as it have been already discussed previously this cycle 17:17:03 Ok next task from last week 17:17:31 List cycle-with-intermediary deliverables that have not been released yet => Done thanks armstrong 17:17:44 np 17:17:51 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/020989.html 17:18:53 AFAIK we didn't get any feedback apart from requirements team 17:20:11 * diablo_rojo joins late 17:20:45 o/ 17:21:03 ack 17:21:30 next task was "On Friday, remind the requirements team to freeze changes to openstack/requirements" => already started 17:21:53 that point depends on the previous ones 17:22:07 ok next topic 17:22:13 #topic Assign R-4 tasks 17:22:39 thanks armstrong for taking this on 17:22:40 one 17:22:59 well, everything seems more or less already distribued 17:23:27 armstrong: yours is more or less similar to your previous one 17:23:41 ok 17:24:08 Anything else to add for next week tasks? 17:25:04 Ok move on 17:25:20 #topic Review countdown email contents 17:25:33 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails 17:28:09 Looks all correct to me. 17:28:23 \o/ 17:28:42 I am only one set of eyes though :) 17:28:51 Hopefully others can check it too. 17:28:52 rotfl 17:29:36 +1 17:29:46 I guess, as a one off we could add one final call for cycle highlights 17:29:51 but I can do that in a separate email 17:29:58 in hopes that more people actually see it lol 17:30:10 Can't hurt 17:30:10 so, coming full circle, lol, it looks good to me. 17:30:19 ok thanks 17:30:28 LGTM 17:30:42 Thank you hberaud :) And congrats on being our fearless leader for another cycle. 17:31:22 My pleasure! This is a fearless team so it's not complicated for me 17:31:55 Ok move on 17:31:59 #topic Releasing requirements - Tagless project 17:32:04 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/779832 17:32:17 Just a minor heads up about this patch 17:33:18 As said in my latest comment I think we need to hold this one until our batches of patches are fully merged. 17:33:25 Any opinion? 17:33:41 I'm wondering why we need to release this 17:33:46 digging in 17:34:09 Also reqs is tagless so I don't think we need a version 17:34:22 I think we only need to cut the branch that's all 17:34:24 right 17:34:34 you just need a location 17:34:52 Already discussed about this with prometheanfire (FYI ^) 17:34:53 yes, requirements branches but it doesn't release 17:35:09 ok 17:35:21 https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/deliverables/victoria/requirements.yaml 17:35:21 Thanks for your confirmation 17:35:34 ya, once we freeze and get those last client releases into reqs we can branch 17:35:35 then yes it should match req freeze 17:35:38 yeah and ussuri did the same 17:35:55 thanks prometheanfire 17:36:24 last time we waited until Oct 4 17:36:43 that's R-2 17:36:44 Michael Johnson proposed openstack/releases master: Release Octavia 6.2.0 for stable/ussuri https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/779503 17:36:58 yeah final RC 17:37:05 that's not too late? 17:37:26 there are some projects that are used as libs (horizon and neutron mainly), not sure if we need to wait for something there 17:37:38 It's in the process 17:37:58 however it's just one more weeks 17:38:00 ok sold 17:38:02 Pretty sure we should wait until R-2 to make sure we have all the exceptions in 17:38:12 Sold 17:38:13 even if in theory it should not move 17:38:25 make sense 17:38:38 prometheanfire: WFY? 17:40:03 WFY? 17:40:25 that works for you? (freezing on R-2) 17:41:00 yes 17:41:10 I just left a related comment directly on the patch 17:41:17 the way zuul jobs integrate branches of required projects, if no matching branch name exists master is used, so that means projects should be able to branch ahead of requirements 17:41:18 ok cool 17:41:51 but requirements will still have to remain frozen until it branches 17:42:08 I see 17:42:14 thanks for details 17:42:30 yep, last time it was just a couple of weeks, 1-2, I'm trying to reduce the time 17:43:04 Maybe we could discuss this point on PTG? 17:43:20 (reducing the time) 17:44:39 OK, we can discuss this point after the meeting. 17:44:42 #topic Governance oversight - Freshly added projects not present in release 17:44:42 ya 17:45:11 must be very fresh 17:45:19 I made another round of vigilance 17:45:25 werent around at m-2 for sure 17:45:41 ok so I think we should ignore them 17:45:53 which is theoretically when we freeze (so that we do not have to do a last round of vigilance :) ) 17:45:53 I prefered to ask first 17:46:10 ok :) 17:46:32 next topic 17:46:39 #topic Tag and create missing ussuri branch os-refresh-config 17:47:05 ttx and myself agreed about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/776636 17:47:32 however I wanted to give a chance to react before pushing the buttons 17:47:51 yeah I don;t care enough about the issue to spend more time on it 17:48:05 elod: FYI ^ 17:48:11 both work 17:48:33 (not doing it and doing it) so let's not spend too much time on it 17:48:33 Ok then I just +2'd 17:48:47 hberaud: I don't have hard feelings either, looks OK :) 17:48:56 ok thanks 17:49:03 feel free to close the debate 17:49:19 #topic OpenstackSDK transition to client-library? 17:49:50 so yoctozepto asked for a FFE on openstackSDK 17:49:57 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021004.html 17:50:06 everybody approved 17:50:09 I think this is not urgent. That affects where the library appears on release page. And when the deadline is 17:50:20 (the transition to client-lib) 17:50:31 ok 17:50:48 So we can keep that thread open and push the patch if needed 17:50:59 the urgent thing is the FFE 17:51:13 I see, that's point is done 17:51:39 Ok move on 17:51:43 #topic Feature branch for Helm 17:51:46 Personally I would keep it the same and consider moving it for next cycle 17:52:07 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/779583 17:52:10 +1 17:52:30 So this one... basically helm is not using release management but wants a feature branch created 17:52:40 yes 17:52:44 I don;t think they should create a deliverable file for that 17:52:50 We can create the branch manually 17:53:11 AFAIK normally they have credential to create branches 17:53:18 no? 17:53:25 checking 17:53:51 I think it's depends on if they are a SIG or not 17:54:08 I'm not sure on this point 17:54:50 hmm newest gerrit does not display ACLs anymore 17:55:02 fungi: any idea? ^ 17:55:03 checking config files 17:55:06 they've already worked that out with the tact sig/opendev 17:55:25 ah then just abandon 17:55:28 we merged a change yesterday or today to allow them to create branches manually themselves 17:55:35 https://review.opendev.org/admin/repos/openstack/openstack-helm,access is a bit dry 17:56:01 ok so let's just abandon the patch 17:56:04 fungi: if you have a ref we can close https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/779583 referencing it 17:56:04 gerrit hides acl entries from you if you're not authorized to do those things described by the acl 17:56:48 fungi: even on repos I have large rights on it looks very dry. But off topic 17:56:48 ah I missed that it was already abandonned 17:57:19 ah ENOTAPROBLEM -- next topic! 17:57:24 Ok next topic 17:57:28 #link https://review.opendev.org/779872 Add create ref acl for osh release groups 17:57:28 #topic Release errors 17:57:45 Tripleo-ipsec tagging issue 17:57:52 I have not caught up on that thread 17:58:05 checking now 17:58:40 that's the one where it looks like their .gitreview file may not have ever been updated to the new review.opendev.org hostname, and we may not be preinstalling a known_hosts entry for the old name 17:58:53 specifically on the stable/rocky branch they' 17:58:56 re trying to eol 17:59:17 ok let's do (2) as suggested 17:59:27 +1 17:59:29 next! 17:59:32 +1 17:59:35 we can still make it 17:59:40 yarn fail http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021002.html 17:59:42 :D 17:59:47 15 seconds left 17:59:57 I think we need a js expert here 18:00:00 wtf yarn! 18:00:14 surely a package manager 18:00:29 yeah it's athe NPM upload thing iirc 18:00:37 let's wait for someone to chime in 18:00:50 I propose to continue this topic directly on the ML 18:00:54 does that job fail consistently for all projects using it, or only that repo? 18:01:00 I'll add a note for next weel 18:01:03 week 18:01:05 but yeah, ml makes more sense 18:01:39 ok next point 18:01:49 #topic PTG reminder 18:01:56 Don't forget to vote 18:01:58 fungi: last time it worked was in 2017 18:02:07 last time it ran was in 2017 too. 18:02:08 wow 18:02:08 #link https://doodle.com/poll/8d8n2picqnhchhsv 18:02:14 https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=release-openstack-javascript&project=openstack/monasca-grafana-datasource 18:02:18 ah hm 18:02:27 too many filters 18:02:45 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/xena-ptg-os-relmgt 18:02:55 Feel free to add topics to our etherpad 18:03:05 it actually ran successfully last time, but that was 18months ago 18:03:25 2019-09-26 yeah 18:03:27 #topic Quick Open Discussion 18:03:31 It's independent so not really release-process-critical 18:03:40 Merged openstack/releases master: Tag and create missing ussuri branch os-refresh-config https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/776636 18:03:49 hberaud: thanks! 18:03:54 Anything else? 18:04:24 Sorry we overflowed a little 18:04:33 np 18:04:39 it's feature freeze after all 18:04:43 :) 18:04:47 If we do not overflow today, when do we 18:04:47 champagne 18:04:52 +20 minutes 18:05:10 (free) 18:05:42 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64414716/unexpected-token-in-yarn-installation 18:05:55 "The error is caused by the old version of nodejs (usually lower than v6)." 18:06:14 yay backward compatibility 18:06:18 https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/runtimes/wallaby.html#node-js-runtime-for-wallaby 18:06:41 We use nodejs 10 18:07:31 not sure that's what is installed on the host tho 18:07:35 hm wait which branch it was? 18:07:57 independent so master 18:08:02 ok 18:08:29 So I suppose it rely on the series supported runtimes 18:08:46 I bet system-installed yarn is older than nodejs10 18:09:00 could be 18:09:09 but then I'm just speaking weird words 18:09:21 yarn node node yarn 18:09:40 :) 18:09:41 So let's wait for ML discussion with people who actually grok js 18:09:46 +1 18:09:55 Anything else? 18:10:02 maybe push it back to next week meet agenda so that it does not fall between the cracks 18:10:14 already done 18:10:21 my man! 18:10:30 lol 18:11:11 OK, thanks everyone. Let's wrap up! 18:11:20 #endmeeting