17:00:01 #startmeeting releaseteam 17:00:02 Meeting started Thu Mar 18 17:00:01 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is hberaud. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:05 The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' 17:00:09 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/wallaby-relmgt-tracking Agenda 17:00:12 Ping list: ttx armstrong elod damani 17:00:15 o/ 17:00:16 We're way down on line 465 now. 17:00:21 Will just wait a couple minutes for folks. 17:00:24 o/ 17:01:41 o/ 17:03:02 Ok let's go! 17:03:06 #topic Review task completion 17:04:42 Process any remaining client library freeze exception. AFAIK everything is done 17:04:42 neutron-lib and manilaclient have been merged 17:04:49 and all the patches related to client and non-client lib have been merged 17:05:19 https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22wallaby-no-change-libs%22+(status:open) 17:05:25 https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%2522cwi-client-final%2522+(status:open) 17:05:49 prometheanfire: FYI ^ 17:06:03 re: client libs we probably want python-openstackclient released soon enough 17:06:25 yarp 17:06:46 someone proposed a patch for python-openstackclient => https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781029 17:07:04 however it's just a branching 17:07:11 once reqs re-adds the cross-neutron check and the two master changes merge we can probably branch 17:07:19 unless osc needs a release 17:07:42 I left a comment concerning osc 17:07:50 cool 17:07:58 I think we need a new tag 17:08:05 ya 17:08:06 ttx: any opinion? 17:08:16 to allow a fixing window 17:08:21 for W 17:08:44 c.f https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781029/1#message-c5a3625cfaab85c3593f611adf5c4b623ff1053f 17:10:20 Anyway this osc is on the next week tasks and I think that tomorrow I'll propose the patches accordingly 17:10:58 Ok next task 17:11:04 Propose stable/$series branch creation for all client and non-client libraries => done 17:11:31 yeah I'd tag it again, soonish 17:11:44 a couple of patches remains opened https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22wallaby-stable-branches%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) 17:11:49 ttx: ok 17:11:58 tomorrow I'll propose the tag 17:12:52 concerning the remaining patches I think that tomorrow evening we will force them 17:13:22 even if no approval from PTL/liaison? 17:13:27 yes 17:13:29 ok 17:13:41 they are client and non-client lib 17:13:41 then I'll review them tomorrow with that respect 17:14:22 so I don't think that we want wait more at this point 17:14:31 understood 17:14:44 next task 17:15:09 List cycle-with-intermediary deliverables that have not been refreshed in the last 2 months. Done thanks armstrong 17:15:18 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021089.html 17:15:34 I seen a couple of related responses and patches 17:16:07 I'll have another look tomorrow 17:17:01 next task 17:17:09 Tracking yarn fail => done 17:17:43 I submitted an email with some details => http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021117.html 17:18:50 I think that ttx was right, the pulled version of nodejs provided by xenial seems meet the condition to face the issue 17:18:56 fungi: FYI ^ 17:20:04 My main concern is why this job use xenial and not focal 17:21:21 yeah, probably historical 17:21:40 it may be that the old branches are pinned to xenial too. was this for master? 17:22:12 AFAIK independent 17:23:07 fungi: https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/deliverables/_independent/monasca-grafana-datasource.yaml 17:23:53 I don't know what's behind independent I was thinking it was the same that with master 17:24:45 in other words that's not old branches 17:25:32 i'm not seeing yet the full picture, but the answer is maybe around here: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/cdffd2a26a0d4a5b8137edb392fa5971/log/zuul-info/inventory.yaml#30 17:26:34 Could be 17:26:40 ok let's continue to discuss this topic on the ML 17:26:46 which points to a nodejs4-publish-to-npm template with pinned node_version 4? >>> https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/src/branch/master/zuul.d/project-templates.yaml#L1587-1606 17:27:11 hberaud: ack 17:27:33 I'll try to investigate a bit tomorrow if nothing happens 17:27:47 elod: do you mind to reply directly on the thread to keep things centralized there? 17:28:04 hberaud: sure 17:28:10 thanks elod 17:28:20 Ok next topic 17:28:24 #topic Assign R-3 tasks 17:28:43 there's a nodejs8-publish-to-npm template in there too 17:29:30 ok maybe the solution is just to use it 17:30:06 I don't know update that 17:31:09 Ok let's go for next week taks 17:31:13 tasks 17:32:01 We mostly have to generate release requests 17:32:10 I already put my name 17:32:37 thanks armstrong for helping on that point 17:33:17 np 17:33:33 This is mostly one big batch of patches with few entry points 17:33:48 I'll generate them tomorrow 17:33:56 armstrong: are you available? 17:34:07 yes 17:34:08 I am 17:34:24 armstrong: we can proceed as usually 17:34:46 hberaud: usual time? 17:35:15 yes around 2pm UTC 17:35:25 that work for you? 17:35:28 yes 17:35:32 excellent 17:35:36 see you there :) 17:35:40 see you here :) 17:36:01 ok 17:36:27 Ok next topic 17:36:34 #topic Review countdown email contents 17:36:44 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails 17:36:50 looking 17:39:05 I did change "master" -> "the master branch" which is slightly less offending 17:39:16 excellent 17:39:21 I'll update the template 17:39:37 also tere were two consecutive "will" 17:39:47 clear to send! 17:42:20 ok thanks 17:42:41 #topic tripleo-ipsec tags 17:42:48 Hervé Beraud proposed openstack/releases master: improve docs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781525 17:42:55 ttx: the fix ^ 17:43:35 +2 17:44:05 Just a quick summary concerning the tripleo-ipsec stuff 17:44:23 elod proposed the fix for rocky 17:44:50 if these fixes pass then I think that we can unlock https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/778925 17:45:22 ttx: do you mind to approve the both fixes? 17:45:43 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781122 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781123/ 17:46:05 just wanted to paste https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22tripleo-ipsec-rocky-eol%22 17:46:08 :) 17:46:22 lol 17:46:47 but I was late again... :X 17:47:25 ok let's see what will happen :) 17:47:34 next topic 17:47:35 done 17:47:39 awesome 17:47:53 #topic puppet Milestone 3 17:48:29 Please let me know what do you think about that https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/780559/2#message-98487dba55dc6901f953e01beead0bfcfa95cacb 17:49:05 the author proposed 2 patches at the same time, one for M2 and one for M3 17:49:21 First, I don't think we need M2 at this point 17:50:40 Also the author abandonned the M3 patch and he only keep the M2 patch, accordingly to the used SHA that mean that lot of changes have been skipped 17:51:01 frankly for milestones I would let them have it the way they want 17:51:16 why not 17:51:21 i.e. whatever works for you man 17:51:39 You can point at the weirdness, but i would not have held it -- too much work for nothing 17:52:01 ok then I'll reopen the M3 patch 17:52:19 now you will spend time on it while the net effect on the release is insignificant 17:52:26 and let's merge the M2 patch 17:52:37 +1 17:52:48 thanks for feedback 17:53:01 ok 17:53:05 last topic 17:53:09 #topic Remaining Wallaby Cycle Highlight 17:53:49 diablo_rojo: any opinion about this patch? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/780217 17:54:33 hberaud, I am find to land it when the feature lands? 17:54:40 I asked for feedback but for now I didn't get response 17:55:00 yes 17:55:15 are you ok from your point of view 17:55:15 if I'm not mistaken the last patch is on the gate, but couldn't get confirmed by gibi, 17:55:24 that was my question 17:55:25 as he has EOD already 17:55:35 ok 17:55:41 good to know that 17:55:41 o/ I was hoping to ask a question about the upper-constraint jobs openstack runs. As an example if the requirement.txt file, does not contain the transient dependency, but the upper-constraint.txt does, will pip do the right thing and cap the transient deps? or should said transient dep also be included into the requirements.txt file 17:55:46 Yeah totally. I am fine merging any of the cycle highlight stuff even if its retroactive. 17:56:09 diablo_rojo: ok thanks 17:56:13 We mostly had the deadline because thats when the marketing machine starts their processing of what is there to make the rpress release etc. 17:56:17 let's wait for gibi 17:56:23 hberaud, sounds good :) 17:56:27 The more the merrier :) 17:56:41 ahah 17:56:43 #topic Open Floor 17:56:55 Anything else? 17:57:07 pabelanger: the floor is yours 17:57:22 Nothing from me :) 17:57:53 pabelanger: I think that's more a question for #openstack-requirements 17:58:05 contraints files apply to all package installs being evaluated in that pip run 17:58:18 thanks, also sorry I didn't look to see if a meeting was going on 17:58:18 doesn't matter if they are transient or not if constraints says to constrain it then pip is supposed to 17:58:29 pabelanger: np 17:58:48 clarkb: ack, that is what I thought. I think I might be hitting issues with older version of pip (19.0.1) 17:58:57 will move to requirements channel now 17:59:02 thanks 17:59:10 Anything else? 17:59:47 nothing from me :X 17:59:56 OK, thanks everyone. Let's wrap up. (just in time) 17:59:59 nothing from me 18:00:02 #endmeeting