20:30:51 #startmeeting requirements 20:30:52 Meeting started Wed Apr 17 20:30:51 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is prometheanfire. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:30:53 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:30:55 The meeting name has been set to 'requirements' 20:31:02 #topic rollcall 20:31:07 tonyb, prometheanfire, number80, dirk, coolsvap, toabctl, smcginnis, dhellmann ping 20:31:10 o/ 20:32:13 o/ 20:35:33 Looking like it's just going to be us. 20:35:51 ya, will wait for tony a couple of min 20:37:44 \o 20:37:46 Sorry 20:38:29 #topic controversies in the queue 20:38:44 #link https://review.openstack.org/652624 20:39:38 I feel like just using u-c for now is the right call 20:39:58 I'm fine with that and would rather just do that 20:40:01 removing caps is a lot of work so if we can avoid that we should 20:40:09 ++ 20:40:14 good point, it has knock on effects 20:40:28 I'd suggest adding a != for known bad versions 20:40:41 #link https://review.openstack.org/652629 20:40:51 Yup 20:40:55 I'd like some more eyes, I haven't eval'd the code yet but looks 'ok' 20:41:27 I think protobuf is used a lot elsewhere. I think it should be safe. 20:42:01 Yeah I think it's kinda the new hotness 20:42:15 I think it shoudl be okay in general but I haven't done a real review 20:42:21 indeed 20:42:33 haven't took the deep look yet either 20:42:48 protocol buffers have been around for years. Not sure about this specific library, but it is a well established thing. 20:43:03 #link https://review.openstack.org/651591 20:43:25 Ah protobuf lib has at least been around since 2008. Should be "mature". 20:43:41 that has issues with tempest full, haven't seen what project is failing but it's not a cross test one it seems 20:43:47 or I would expect 20:44:06 What's been holding us back on sqlalchemy 20:44:33 haven't seen why tempest keeps failing yet, just calling it out for now 20:44:58 I would be surprised if this is a sqlalchemy issue: http://logs.openstack.org/91/651591/1/check/tempest-full/9a1bcab/job-output.txt.gz#_2019-04-16_22_48_18_679664 20:45:19 If it's pulling the wrong data from the DB, that would be Very Bad. 20:45:26 VERY 20:45:28 BAD 20:45:32 ya 20:45:44 But we're a long way back 1.2.18 -> 1.3.2 I assume we had a reason for that 20:46:31 Original neutron issue that kept it back looks different: http://paste.openstack.org/show/748825/ 20:46:35 to stay on 1.2.18? 20:46:52 I don't know that could be a sqla issue, it looks like the test updates a description if that didn't land correctly in the DB that would case a mismatch 20:47:00 at the time it was that openstack stuff kept failing, now it may be sqla itself 20:47:01 I'm not sayin it *is* but it could be 20:47:13 Comments at patch set 2: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/649508 20:47:40 smcginnis: Thanks for those links 20:48:02 ya, could 20:48:12 anything else? 20:48:32 okay probably less of an issue than I thought oon the sqla chnage 20:48:45 just all the -2's from zuul on the pike chnages 20:48:55 I haven't looked at them are they legit? 20:50:28 I don't think so, some are merge fails, some are random, consider the count I think we are fine 20:50:35 IndexError: tuple index out of range OperationalError: (2014, 'Command Out of Sync') 20:50:43 Random failures that look unrelated to me. 20:51:27 True, there were quite a few. Sorry, I probably should have given a heads up before I started approving so many of those. 20:51:42 Guessing we will just have to do some more rechecks to work the rest through. 20:52:32 okay I can plug away at them today 20:52:47 cool 20:53:14 There will be more coming over the next couple of weeks 20:53:20 #topic conf/ptg 20:53:25 as we transition pike to EM 20:54:13 tonyb[m]: I was lenient on approving ones that didn't really have code changes, but now considering the extra work they can cause, maybe we should review the list-changes for those some more and drop the ones that don't actually change anything. 20:54:20 Can we mostly do requirements stuff on Friday after lunch? 20:54:35 tonyb[m]: wfm 20:54:56 smcginnis: When I looked there weren't that many that didn't have code changes 20:55:01 Did we figure out a release team time? May be good to combine them or at least make them back to back. 20:55:13 tonyb[m]: OK, I'll watch for more. 20:55:26 smcginnis: I *think* releases will be meeting Friday morning 20:55:49 OK, that's good then. Release in the morning, requirements in the afternoon. Works for me. 20:56:02 That's kinda my thinking ;P 20:56:46 prometheanfire: Honeymoon plans all set? :) 20:58:03 heh, that'll be later in the summer/fall I think 20:58:18 open floor time? 20:58:32 +1 to open floor 21:00:12 #topic meetings for next two weeks 21:00:27 so, I'm out next week, and the week after is conf/ptg 21:00:35 I'll be on a plane this time next week 21:00:38 so, no meetings? 21:00:44 wfm 21:00:52 Yeah I think skip the next 2 21:01:00 kk 21:01:04 #topic open floor 21:01:05 the one post PTG I'll be in the US so huzzah! 21:01:10 :D 21:01:26 mind you it'll be 1630'ish ;p 21:01:30 You can pick up some American Tim Tams. :P 21:01:39 lolol 21:01:40 LOL 21:01:59 That reminds me I need to get some for spotz and OUI 21:04:13 anything else? 21:04:29 Not from me. 21:04:33 #endmeeting