12:59:37 #startmeeting rpm_packaging 12:59:38 Meeting started Thu Apr 14 12:59:37 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dirk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:59:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 12:59:41 The meeting name has been set to 'rpm_packaging' 12:59:53 hi dirk, IgorYozhikov 13:00:13 everyone, please add your agenda items to https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging 13:00:17 hey mivanov, IgorYozhikov ! 13:01:24 o/ 13:02:20 o/ 13:02:40 already add some topics to agenda 13:07:44 sorry 13:07:51 someone dragged me off the computer!! 13:07:54 darn 13:07:55 lets start 13:08:04 #topic Using all DB backends within project template as runt-time dependencies (IgorYozhikov) 13:08:21 IgorYozhikov: Interesting one, I saw the discussion in the PR.. 13:08:37 yep, I raised this question earlier with toabctl 13:09:43 So, should we add these python | other bindings as run-time deps 13:10:26 adding them lead to increasing a chain of dependent packages 13:10:58 yeah 13:11:12 but on the other side I don't want to require all different databases that exist 13:11:33 either we have to conditionalize it somehow or choose the default 13:11:45 or not choose any and let the user select one 13:11:54 toabctl is on sickleave today btw 13:11:57 or, if i remembered right, toabctl suggest to add some-kind of sub-package for this purpose 13:12:53 only with that bindings 13:13:57 for example we have python-oslo-db and could add a sub package like python-oslo-db-bindings 13:14:27 yeah 13:14:47 naming could be discussed :) 13:15:49 number80, r u around, your thoughts about ^^^^ 13:16:25 IgorYozhikov: I am fien with the idea, I don't have an own opinion right now as I haven't researched this in detail 13:17:44 dirk,may be move this topic to the next meeting with a higher quorum? 13:17:46 IgorYozhikov: can we postpone the topic? toabctl is not here, I don't have an opinion.. or do you have a concrete suggestion? 13:18:34 dirk, agree, we need more voices 13:18:58 to get a conclusion 13:19:42 #agreed postpone the topic 13:19:46 #agreed postpone the topic 13:19:59 #topic AIs review  (IgorYozhikov) 13:20:04 ah, thanks Igor. 13:20:31 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ThirdPartySystems/Fuel_Packaging_CI 13:20:36 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Rpm-packaging 13:20:43 https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Rpm-packaging/ReviewGuidelines 13:20:58 think that not missed anything 13:21:42 stable/mitaka has been cut 13:21:56 everything looks fine 13:22:01 yep, thansk for that 13:22:07 last meetings action items are done 13:22:49 we have a few open from previou meetings though 13:24:31 https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/spec.j2.formatts 13:24:45 this is one about formatting 13:25:09 I proposed 2 variants 13:25:10 ah, nice, thats the one I just looked up 13:25:48 main change is different indentation level? 13:25:53 whats your preference? 13:25:54 to be honest - I like this one http://paste.openstack.org/show/491703/ 13:26:30 so its one space vs two spaces after BuildRequires: ? 13:26:34 2 \n separate logical parts in template like pre,build,instal, etc 13:27:43 ok 13:28:04 no strong opinion either way for me. so the different indentation isn't an issue? 13:28:33 nope 13:28:35 o/ 13:28:56 no, just looking better when code blocks separated with 2 \n 13:30:06 #agreed two \n for separating rpm sections like %prep, %build, %install 13:30:25 want to update the review guidelines? 13:30:35 yes, will do 13:31:13 hang ai on me :) 13:32:38 #ai IgorYozhikov update review guidelines for section separation 13:32:48 next topic ? 13:33:05 #action IgorYozhikov update review guidelines for section separation 13:33:35 yes, if we finished with AIs 13:33:45 anything still open? 13:33:46 * dirk looks 13:34:36 will there be a meeting next week? 13:35:12 number80, why not? 13:35:33 some people may be on their way to Austin 13:35:48 i c' 13:36:28 I don't find any other open action items in the minutes 13:36:35 ok to move on? 13:36:40 sure 13:36:49 go 13:36:51 #topicAdd bareon RPM temlate to master (https://github.com/openstack/bareon)  (IgorYozhikov) 13:36:54 #topic Add bareon RPM temlate to master (https://github.com/openstack/bareon)  (IgorYozhikov) 13:37:37 I had been asking about adding RPM 4 bareon project 13:38:08 I asked bareon leads to set a tag 13:38:15 ah formerly known as fuel-agent 13:38:16 to be used within build 13:38:20 yes 13:38:33 https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Bareon 13:39:01 so, if there are no objections or something else - I could make it 13:39:06 which dependencies does it have? is it realistic to be added right now? 13:39:06 IgorYozhikov: none 13:39:31 (in principle, anything under the openstack namespace is welcome) 13:39:50 https://github.com/openstack/bareon/blob/master/requirements.txt 13:39:59 dirk, it looks very common 13:41:00 IgorYozhikov: yeap. just add it then 13:41:06 ok 13:41:21 #agreed barean can be added 13:41:25 grrr 13:41:28 #agreed bareon can be added 13:41:43 #topic Pending reviews? 13:41:45 #action IgorYozhikov will add bareon RPM template to master 13:42:13 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/rpm-packaging 13:42:30 we have here PRs with passed tests 13:43:27 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/305012/ 13:43:44 obviously fine by me :) 13:45:16 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/270826/ 13:45:41 good by me 13:45:42 number80, could you please look & merge if necessary 13:45:51 IgorYozhikov: ack 13:46:17 dirk, please look into https://review.openstack.org/#/c/303450/ 13:46:34 all comments were addressed :) 13:46:35 this should be an easy one: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/304309/ 13:46:39 FYI, I'm working on our gating (I have a non-voting one running home) 13:47:33 number80: nice. can it report back already? 13:47:45 it would be good to see the results 13:48:08 well, it runs builds artifacts publishing is broken (hence breaking many builds) 13:48:47 so having a gate that -1 most reviews is not useful yet 13:49:01 but we'll have one running during Newton cycle 13:49:39 dirk, what is the point to set stable/mitaka as default review branch 13:49:40 ? 13:49:47 instead of master 13:50:17 number80: ok 13:51:25 IgorYozhikov: well, so that when you run "git review" on a change in stable/mitaka, it gets published under stable/mitaka by default 13:51:35 otherwise you'd proposa a patch against master by default, which probably doesn't make sense 13:52:59 depends, we're bounded to do more work in the master branch 13:53:10 depends on goals, if you want to populate repo with mitaka related projects - makes sense 13:53:57 jsut to clarify, there are two branches 13:54:03 this PR is for the stable branch 13:54:10 master branch defaults to master branch as before 13:54:16 dirk, o i c 13:54:30 sorry missed that 13:54:41 mine +2 13:55:39 number80 ? 13:55:48 can we continue in #openstack-rpm-packaging? 13:55:57 +2 13:56:00 yes 13:56:04 sure 13:59:42 #endmeeting