14:00:36 #startmeeting releaseteam 14:00:36 Meeting started Fri Jan 10 14:00:36 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is elodilles. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:36 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:36 The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' 14:00:48 Ping list: release-team 14:00:58 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/epoxy-relmgt-tracking 14:00:59 o/ 14:01:00 o/ 14:01:08 o/ 14:03:23 so we are around line 184 14:04:00 let's start then 14:04:14 #topic Review task completion 14:04:26 1st task was: 14:04:33 'Generate a list of all cycle-with-intermediary libraries which did not release since the YYYY-MM-DD date of milestone-1. (elod)' 14:04:48 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:epoxy-milestone-2 14:05:30 a bit less than 3rd part of them are missing reviews, 14:06:00 some still waits for update or further team member reviews 14:06:21 or 2nd +2s 14:07:48 I'll double check the ones that has no response from team after the meeting and I guess we can release them if there's no issue with them 14:07:57 Ok I will take a look and review some 14:08:11 armstrong: thanks o/ 14:09:01 there is a follow-up task for this in next weeks tasks, so this should be good 14:09:08 oh one question though: 14:09:23 i've seen a release patch for python-freezerclient 14:09:36 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938780 14:09:40 commented on it ^^^ 14:10:07 is freezer officially back in this cycle? 14:10:34 it's still listed as inactive 14:10:35 because in that case i think all its deliverables should be added 14:10:45 #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects 14:10:54 * ttx looks up log 14:11:30 so either we shouldn't add or add all necessary freezer deliverables 14:11:46 See https://meetings.opendev.org/irclogs/%23openstack-release/%23openstack-release.2025-01-06.log.html 14:12:11 So it's a bit uncertain 14:13:00 thanks for the link 14:13:57 then the question is: should we add freezer deliverables, or just leave it to freezer folks to tag the releases manually (if we are not sure about its active state) 14:14:35 opinions? 14:14:43 probably the latter unless/until the tc takes it out of inactive state? 14:15:19 I think we give noonedeadpunk a bit more time to decide if it will be revived 14:15:41 But yes we need closure on this well before milestone-3 14:15:48 +1 14:16:39 yeah, i mean, this is about the point in the cycle where if the tc hasn't decided then it's presumably deferred until next cycle, logistically 14:17:13 yepp 14:17:54 this week was their official deadline according to the schedule 14:18:29 but the release can be done anyway, it just won't show up in the coordinated release 14:18:35 right 14:19:16 anyway, i'm adding a topic regarding this to next week's meeting, for a follow up 14:20:13 OK, move on then 14:20:49 2nd task was: 'To catch if there are acl issues in newly created repositories, run tools/aclissues.py (ttx)' 14:21:00 openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin (Quality Assurance) in openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin.config 14:21:02 I ran the check and spotted one glitch 14:21:19 and proposed the project-config fix for it 14:21:36 fwiw, I've pushed freezer client patch yesterday 14:21:39 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/938887 14:21:39 this one i guess: 14:21:42 ^^^ 14:22:54 so we are all set 14:23:12 noonedeadpunk: i've seen it and commented on it 14:23:28 aha, ok, let me check then :) 14:23:43 noonedeadpunk: feel free to ping us anytime to discuss the thing if needed 14:24:18 elodilles: so I feel it being like a chicken-egg situation right now 14:24:43 for freezer to become active - a TC resolution should be made 14:25:12 but it's already a deadline for clients, and if client is not gonna be released - TC will point to absent release for lcient 14:25:22 noonedeadpunk: i think we are happy to add the deliverables (all of them at once) to deliverables/epoxy if you/TC ACKs they are ready to be part of 2025.1 Epoxy 14:25:25 the tc tells the release managers which projects will be included in the coordinated release 14:26:06 ok, so basically it should be TC resolution first to state that project is active... 14:26:19 yeah, and the sooner we know the better :) 14:26:43 I just think I saw some different prespective, that a release could be a flag to TC... but I could misunderstood 14:27:12 so right now CI is green, though a work is ongoing for some bigger re-factoring of the service 14:27:56 (which potentially will be ready only by 2025.2) 14:28:10 ok. then I'll go and propose patch to governance I guess 14:28:30 noonedeadpunk: as I said some line above, if you are not that sure that freezer can be part of 2025.1, then there is the option to manually release the deliverables 14:29:12 yes, the projects' deliverables can presumably have releases this cycle, even if they're not officially included as part of the coordinated 2025.1/epoxy release 14:29:49 being inactive doesn't necessarily block release requests for those deliverables 14:29:49 tagging rights need to be granted for a freezer core, and the tagging will trigger the release jobs. the releases will happen, but the deliverables won't be listed under 2025.1 Epoxy 14:30:30 or manual releasing like that i guess, right 14:31:38 anyway, the sooner we have a more clear view / decision, is the better :) we don't have to decide on this meeting i guess :) 14:32:24 so let's move on now - noonedeadpunk feel free to ping us any time next week if you have any further question 14:32:28 ++ 14:32:41 ttx: about whitebox-tempest-plugin 14:32:55 is that added to releases repository somewhere? 14:33:11 ir will that be the next step to add? 14:33:30 it was already there 14:33:40 hmmm. i don't find it 14:34:11 in _independent? 14:34:15 ah, there it is 14:34:26 sorry then, then all good 14:35:55 OK, then this task is also covered 14:36:13 well, the topic as well 14:36:17 so next topic: 14:36:28 #topic Assign R-11 week tasks 14:36:59 ttx: could you chair next week's meeting? 14:37:33 yes 14:38:19 i've added my name to the release cycle schedule planning task, but feel free to hijack it if you have already some timeplan in your mind o:) 14:38:30 ttx: thanks o/ 14:38:31 was wondering if we have covered the "OpenStackSDK, Monasca and Freezer" task from this week 14:38:38 We discussed Freezer... 14:38:58 so maybe we need to push it back to next week? 14:39:04 ttx: oh sorry 14:39:11 #undo 14:39:11 Removing item from minutes: #topic Assign R-11 week tasks 14:39:28 missed it... 14:39:31 so: 14:39:37 'Chase OpenStackSDK, Monasca and Freezer PTLs re: deliverables defined in governance but not in deliverable files (see above)' 14:40:02 OpenStackSDK is kind of covered with the recent addition of codegenerator, openapi 14:40:23 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/938668 14:40:29 That leaves Monasca 14:41:02 which I think is about to be removed 14:41:37 you mean from project-config repository, right? 14:41:51 From governance. we should probably add a check in a future week that it's been indeed cleaned up 14:42:11 I'll add it to a future week. 14:42:22 ttx: ACK, thanks. 14:42:38 I can prepare a patch for that if needed 14:42:54 i haven't seen changes yet to retire the monasca deliverables, but i do expect they're on the way soon yes 14:43:01 if you haven't done yet 14:43:37 I think it's a decision for the TC to make 14:43:57 OK I think we can move on :) 14:44:22 ACK, thanks! 14:44:30 #topic Assign R-11 week tasks 14:44:41 all tasks taken 14:45:09 #topic Review weekly countdown email 14:45:22 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails 14:45:25 please review ^^^ 14:47:31 lgtm 14:47:38 ++ 14:47:52 will send it after the meeting 14:48:20 #topic Open Discussion 14:48:29 anything to discuss? 14:49:07 #link https://review.opendev.org/938510 Allow pre-releases for independent deliverables 14:49:41 i pushed that up for debate, i don't feel super strongly that it's needed, but we had a case where it would be nice 14:49:52 i've had only a quick glance at the patch, i don't know the history of this o:) 14:50:16 I commented... 14:50:50 in particular, pbr's use as a setuptools plugin (setup_requires/build-backend) makes it very hard to test from source in packages that use it 14:50:55 I just have a very hard time remembering, but that corner case definitely rings a bell 14:51:09 i'm also OK to +2 this if needed. we can revert if it turns out as a bad decision o:) 14:51:38 ttx: was my answer in the comment yesterday what you were thinking of, or was it something else? 14:51:47 My memory is definitely associated with the ghost of Monty telling me we should really not allow that 14:52:15 ah, missed the answer, checking 14:52:56 basically, yes pre-releases were a problem before all our supported platforms had pip 1.4 or later (which probably wasn't until at least 2016) 14:52:57 spooky :S 14:53:36 OK, that sounds like the thing I remember (wrong version being installed and all) 14:54:24 We should check that auto-proposal of global requirements constraints updates skip first, probably 14:54:52 but it did remind me, as i commented, that we probably want the constraints update proposal job to not run for pre-release versions (which may already be the case since the pre-release and release pipelines in zuul are separate) 14:56:21 yeah, looks like propose-update-constraints runs from the release pipeline specifically 14:56:54 #link https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=propose-update-constraints&skip=0 14:57:14 oh! we do also run it in the pre-release pipeline 14:57:44 #link https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=propose-update-constraints&pipeline=pre-release&skip=0 14:58:25 so it's possible we're already putting pre-releases of things in constraints, just not independent release libs 14:59:09 fungi: yes but cycle-with-rc things are usually not use in dependencies 14:59:15 used* 14:59:33 beta/milestone release are used though 14:59:38 We require all libraries to be cycle-with-intermediary for that reason 14:59:41 i see pyeclib there, for example, which is in constraints 15:00:39 I remember a library using pre-release versioning was a bad idea. maybe no longer since 2016 15:01:09 so that's why we forced all libs to be cycle-with-intermediary 15:01:48 i don't want to drag the meeting out, just bringing that change to everyone's attention, we can discuss async later 15:02:47 fungi: ACK 15:02:56 let's end the meeting then 15:03:09 and we can discuss this further if needed after the meeting 15:03:16 thanks everyone o/ 15:03:20 #endmeeting