17:00:10 #startmeeting releaseteam 17:00:11 Meeting started Thu Mar 25 17:00:10 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is hberaud. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:14 The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' 17:00:15 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/wallaby-relmgt-tracking Agenda 17:00:18 Ping list: ttx armstrong elod damani 17:00:22 o/ 17:00:27 o/ 17:00:38 We're way down on line 507 now. 17:00:53 Will just wait a couple minutes for folks. 17:01:27 time flies 17:03:01 #topic Review task completion 17:03:09 1) Process any remaining library branching exception. 17:03:16 The only exception is this one => https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781175 17:03:27 Matthew was ok 17:03:31 just approved 17:03:36 awesome 17:03:46 2) On the Monday, generate release requests for all deliverables that have do not have a suitable candidate yet. 17:03:54 https://review.opendev.org/dashboard/?title=Releases+Inbox&foreach=is%3Aopen&Wallaby=project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+file%3A%5Edeliverables%2Fwallaby%2F.%2A+NOT+label%3AWorkflow%2D1&Victoria=project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+file%3A%5Edeliverables%2Fvictoria%2F.%2A+NOT+label%3AWorkflow%2D1&Ussuri=project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+file%3A%5Edeliverables%2Fussuri%2F.%2A+NOT+label%3AWorkflow%2D1&Train=projec 17:03:56 t%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+file%3A%5Edeliverables%2Ftrain%2F.%2A+NOT+label%3AWorkflow%2D1&Independent=project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+file%3A%5Edeliverables%2F_independent%2F.%2A+NOT+label%3AWorkflow%2D1&Other=project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+NOT+file%3A%5Edeliverables%2F.%2A&Jobs=project%3Aopenstack%2Fproject%2Dconfig+file%3A%5Eroles%2Fcopy%2Drelease%2Dtools%2Dscripts%2Ffiles%2Frelease%2Dtools%2F.%2A&T 17:03:58 ools=%28%28+project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+file%3A%5Etools%2F.%2A+%29+OR+project%3Aopenstack%2Frelease%2Dtest+OR+%28+project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases+file%3A%5Eopenstack_releases%2F.%2A+%29+OR+project%3Aopenstack%2Freno%29&All+Releases=is%3Aopen+project%3Aopenstack%2Freleases 17:04:04 sorry 17:04:06 https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22wallaby-rc1-deadline%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) 17:04:35 So tomorrow we will see more clearly 17:05:00 and the last one task 17:05:04 3) Tracking yarn fail 17:05:07 Done! 17:05:15 The job is now fixed 17:05:38 and deliverables have been properly uploaded 17:05:52 Next topic 17:05:59 #topic Assign R-2 tasks 17:06:44 o/ sorry for being late :X 17:06:57 Some tasks are already assigned. Any volunteer for the remaining tasks? 17:07:13 By example to ping the QA team 17:07:46 hberaud: ack on QA items. 17:08:18 looking 17:08:21 ok thanks gmann 17:09:04 "Ensure that all projects that are publishing release notes have the notes link included in their deliverable file." Any volunteer? 17:09:15 got it 17:09:20 thanks 17:09:38 so everything seems assigned 17:09:53 (can someone ping me when open discussion starts?) 17:10:01 I am available 17:10:11 rosmaita: ok 17:10:25 ttx: 17:10:36 if you need any help I am available 17:10:53 armstrong: I put your name on the QA stuff 17:11:00 with me 17:11:08 hberaud: OK thanks 17:11:28 Ok thanks. Next topic 17:11:35 #topic Review countdown email contents 17:11:41 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails 17:14:08 looking 17:14:13 Merged openstack/releases master: Proposing Wallaby RC1 for octavia-dashboard https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781727 17:14:35 Merged openstack/releases master: Proposing Wallaby RC1 for designate-dashboard https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781644 17:14:38 lgtm 17:14:55 thanks 17:15:28 Ok move on 17:15:34 #topic Moving ovn-octavia-provider to cycle-with-rc 17:15:40 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/780673 17:16:01 Merged openstack/releases master: New heat-translator version 2.3.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781175 17:16:18 Any opinion about ^? c.f comments 17:16:58 I think it's not too late to switch the model 17:17:44 Merged openstack/releases master: Proposing Wallaby RC1 for storlets https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781759 17:18:35 The octavia team doesn't have an opinion. It's really up to neutron on how to manage that. 17:20:02 Ok thanks for feedback I'll update the patch accordingly 17:20:02 oops sorry was disconnected 17:20:02 ok so both could work, it;s very late to change it 17:20:02 so I'd say it depends who wants to change it and how badly 17:20:23 hberaud: sorry, got bumped with ssl update 17:21:01 i'm probably the only one that cares about the ovn-octavia-provider 17:21:48 Do you want to update the patch to move to cycle-with-rc now? 17:22:12 at this point i'm more interested in the version numbering, but i could make it cycle-with-rc too 17:22:38 ttx: FYI I proposed to move the model nooow 17:22:40 now 17:22:42 one option is to make Wallaby 1.0.0 17:22:44 but keep it cycle-with-intermediary 17:22:46 Currently it's pre-1.0 so not following semver 17:23:01 LGTM 17:23:10 if you want to be able to do semver bump you need 1.0.0, you don;t need -with-rc really 17:23:32 haleyb: WFY? 17:23:47 ttx: yes, that would work too, i want to be able to backport things that might require a minor version bump, which 1.0.0 would get us 17:23:58 basically pre-1.0 you just do bumps however you like it and semver is ignored by users 17:23:59 make sense 17:24:44 haleyb: so you should also feel empowered to backport things taht require minor bump and only bump the .z 17:24:50 ttx: i guess i don't understand keeping it 0.x.y then? 17:25:01 1.0.0 is when you start signalling you'll respect semver. Before, all bets are off 17:25:15 you can break everything when you want 17:25:27 (with 0.y.z) 17:25:47 semver being semantic versioning? 17:26:02 yes 17:26:07 yes. it really depends how ready it is to follow semantic versioning 17:26:49 3 options: 17:27:07 (to backport things that should warrant a minor bump) 17:27:21 haleyb: https://semver.org/#spec-item-4 17:27:33 1- release wallaby as 0.4.0nd backport things and release tehm as 0.4.1 17:27:59 2- release wallaby as 1.0.0 and backport things and release them (following semver) as 1.1.0 17:28:19 3- same as (2) but as cycle-with-rc 17:28:37 (3) does not really improve on (2) 17:28:54 3bis - each series start with a major bump 17:28:58 The choice between (1) and (2) is about how ready you are to follow semver for this deliverable 17:29:17 You seem to be pretty ready, so I'd say ... pick (2) 17:29:35 no late change in release model needed 17:29:42 yeah 17:29:48 Agreed 17:30:27 haleyb: WFY? 17:30:31 obviously 1.0.0 also conveys some "readiness to be used" so if it's utterly broken right now I'd recommend option (1) 17:30:46 but I suspect it's perfectly functional 17:30:52 thanks for the info, i think it's fine to do 1.x.y as it is not a library so i'm not worried about breaking any API 17:31:01 ack 17:31:03 sorry, my connection is wonky 17:31:28 it's wonky for everyone, we are in the middle of a freenode maintenance window :) 17:32:06 ttx: it's being used downstream already, so only broken when we merge a bug :) 17:32:21 :) 17:33:14 so i'll update to 1.0.0 and leave cycle-with-interbediary, which seemed to be the consensus 17:33:16 haleyb: feel free to submit a new PS to propose a version 1.0.0 17:33:24 ack 17:33:26 thanks 17:33:32 np, thanks for the discussion 17:33:40 you're welcome 17:33:54 Ok next topic 17:34:07 #topic Abandoning a couple of patches 17:34:29 Those are trailing projects 17:34:42 So I think we can abandon them for now 17:34:52 Any opinion? 17:34:55 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781661 17:35:02 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781660 17:35:11 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781657 17:35:18 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/781731 17:35:39 when do we need to release trailing projects? (I guess when every non-trailing have released) 17:36:01 yes abandon 17:36:19 they have until like 3 months after release 17:36:22 However I think we need to update our doc to ignore them next time 17:36:57 3 months sounds quite far, so agree, let's abandon them 17:37:27 Done 17:37:44 I'll try to update the doc soon 17:37:50 Ok next topic 17:37:56 #topic Recent job failure 17:38:11 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/release-job-failures/2021-March/001522.html 17:39:14 Was related to https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/commit/391616bfee043dc3f17eb8eaa1942dedcd6319a9 17:39:32 pypi have been properly updated => https://pypi.org/project/kuryr-kubernetes/4.0.0.0rc1/ 17:39:48 stable branch have been created => https://opendev.org/openstack/kuryr-kubernetes/src/branch/stable/wallaby 17:39:57 however the git tag is missing 17:40:11 hmm, that's weird 17:40:14 I didn't what was exactly the problem in logs 17:40:20 I see both the tag and the branch @ https://opendev.org/openstack/kuryr-kubernetes# 17:40:27 rigth ^ 17:40:41 There is no way it could upload to Pypi without the tag benig pushed 17:40:49 Ah right 17:40:56 I missed the tag previously 17:41:12 The releases change merged, the post job picks it up and tags the repository 17:41:24 Then a release job on that repo is publishing artifacts 17:41:31 Every pieces seems there 17:41:49 if the tag is present, the failure can probably be ignored 17:41:59 taht job only does that tagging 17:42:06 Probably 17:42:37 oh, and then publish-tox-docs-releases was skipped 17:42:38 but that's refreshed on the next run 17:42:43 ok 17:42:51 I think we can ignore it 17:42:52 yes 17:43:09 cool 17:43:37 (I even see the tarball @ https://tarballs.opendev.org/openstack/kuryr-kubernetes/ ) 17:44:06 anyway final RC is not far so doc things will be reexecuted soon 17:44:25 ok next topic 17:44:35 #topic Open Floor 17:44:41 rosmaita: ping 17:44:53 Anything else? 17:45:03 hello 17:45:08 o/ 17:45:17 ok, we found a bug in os-brick that can lead to data loss 17:45:25 of course, os-brick for wallaby has been released 17:45:37 this is the bug : https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/782992 17:45:46 so i was wondering what our options are 17:46:18 If you are able to merge this patch asap then we could consider an RFE 17:46:25 fix bug on main branch, backport to wallaby, release bugfix 17:47:02 that definitely qualifies as an exception if data loss is on the table 17:47:05 ok, so i need to send a RFE to the ml as soon as the backport patch is up 17:47:07 yeah I backport is needed 17:47:24 s/I/a/ 17:47:30 Yes 17:47:34 ok, so it doesn't seem out of the question for wallaby 17:47:38 prometheanfire: FYI ^ 17:48:06 however time flies 17:48:26 yeah, so would tomorrow be the deadline? 17:48:32 the window is short 17:48:46 yeah, i figured 17:49:06 hm requirements freeze is during R-2 17:49:06 this is our deadline 17:49:14 ok, so that is next week 17:49:26 until requirements aren't freezed we can land that 17:49:36 hberaud: we'll fix a data loss no matter what 17:49:43 *early next week 17:50:10 ttx: ok 17:50:14 ok, thanks i will aim for monday 17:50:20 excellent 17:50:29 do not hesitate to ping us if needed 17:50:33 IIRC the freeze is there so that we do not have to bump requirements on every affected project 17:50:33 thanks, i will leave the meeting and go review code 17:50:52 thanks 17:50:57 it would be cinder and nova, mostly nova really 17:51:07 though possibly ironic 17:51:15 anyway, i will do my best to have it on monday 17:51:20 I bet prometheanfire remembers better than i do. But in the past we fixed critical regressions the day before release 17:51:36 so rosmaita is definitely on time :) 17:51:46 for a change! 17:51:55 ok, thanks everyone 17:52:06 I comfident about this topic 17:52:25 rosmaita: You're welcome 17:52:31 Anything else? 17:54:21 OK, thanks everyone. Let's wrap up. 17:54:23 #endmeeting