15:00:22 #startmeeting stable 15:00:22 Meeting started Tue Feb 9 15:00:22 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mriedem. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:23 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:25 The meeting name has been set to 'stable' 15:00:35 will wait a few minutes for people to show up 15:00:48 hi 15:01:07 o/ 15:02:31 tonyb: mtreinish: around? 15:02:52 mrunge: ? 15:03:04 hey o/ 15:03:11 sorry for being late 15:03:19 np, we might as well get started 15:03:34 first, i want to thank tonyb for chairing last week while i was out 15:03:43 #topic status 15:03:58 i was following along with the testtools flare up on kilo 15:04:06 that's mostly under control as of late last week 15:04:25 #link issues https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/stable-tracker 15:04:38 i don't think there is anything new in there really, trove has some problems which people are working on 15:04:52 tonyb was helping sahara getting their tests running in kilo 15:05:05 great! 15:05:05 keystone was also failing -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/277022/ 15:05:12 stable/kilo 15:05:32 oh for testtools? 15:06:00 I don't think it was because of testtools, but because of a change in infra master 15:06:25 ok so i guess we're just waiting for jenkins there 15:06:34 y, I'll see if it works 15:06:49 were there any other known stable branch issues? 15:06:51 I proposed a change to project-config -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/277550/ 15:07:45 #status action items from previous meeting(s) 15:07:50 mrunge to followup with dhellman re horizon release email 15:08:09 mriedem, I just missed the email 15:08:09 mrunge: did that happen? 15:08:13 ah, ok 15:08:21 mriedem, there was a automatic email 15:08:46 yeah this http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-announce/2016-January/000944.html 15:08:47 right? 15:09:02 yes 15:09:07 ok 15:09:08 tonyb check how glance drivers compares to gerrit cores and nagg flaper87 to sync them ;P 15:09:12 but this mail is basically wrong 15:09:14 flaper87: are you around? 15:09:27 last horizon version on pypi is 2012.2 15:09:34 mrunge: yeah i saw that 15:09:34 and it was released there by accident 15:09:57 mrunge: was a bug reported to follow up on that? i saw apavec had a post to the -dev list 15:10:24 mriedem, unfortunately, I didn't had the time to report a bug or follow up there 15:10:34 ok 15:10:52 would you make it an action item for me then? 15:10:55 #action follow up on server projects (e.g. horizon) being released to pypi from stable branches 15:11:00 #undo 15:11:01 Removing item from minutes: 15:11:03 ack, thx 15:11:10 #action mrunge to follow up on server projects (e.g. horizon) being released to pypi from stable branches 15:11:21 thank you 15:11:43 there was an action item for the follows-stable-process tag, we'll come back to that 15:11:48 mriedem to circle back on the list of projects that might need to do a stable/liberty point release 15:11:56 i see someone updated the agenda with the latest point releases 15:12:02 i think mistral is then the only one that's not done 15:12:17 they have a change up in the release repo https://review.openstack.org/#/c/273223/ but it needs to be updated to include a revert of a feature backport 15:12:37 #action mriedem to nudge mistral stable CPL to update https://review.openstack.org/#/c/273223/ 15:13:02 which reminds me, 15:13:13 neutron has been backporting A LOT of changes to stable/liberty 15:13:24 which is fine if they are following policy, 15:13:27 how much is a lot? 15:13:50 i'd have to find the latest release request, but it's like several dozen per month i think 15:14:03 that is a lot 15:14:29 anyway, dhellmann had asked that i review the latest neutron stable/liberty point release request and there were so many changes it was hard to review the change log to make sure they weren't leaking something bad in 15:14:44 so we had pinged mestery to release more often if that's going to be the neutron stable model 15:15:14 #action mriedem to follow up with mestery and/or ihar on releasing from stable more often if they are going to backport a lot of changes frequently 15:15:41 #status kilo 2015.1.4 version updates pending 15:15:49 #link open reviews https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Bump+stable/kilo+next+version+to+2015.1.4+status:open 15:16:16 so neutron, neutron-vpnaas and ironic on stable/kilo can't get their version updates in b/c of gate issues 15:16:39 the last i looked at ironic, there might need to be a devstack backport for a timeout issue 15:17:03 adam_g had worked around something in the ironic devstack plugin to fix master/stable/liberty, but that wasn't being used in kilo 15:17:09 i haven't dug into the neutron* ones 15:17:22 #topic stuck reviews 15:17:40 tony brought this up last week but there wasn't much discussion so i'll bring htis up again 15:17:40 Cleanup multipath ISCSI connections when disconnecting volumes - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229152/ 15:17:54 that is a large change for nova in kilo, 15:18:09 it essentially backports a bunch of changes from os-brick in liberty to nova in kilo to fix multipath bugs 15:18:23 ~400 LOC net change 15:18:36 which seems too risky for me, 15:18:44 mriedem: I'm now 15:19:15 flaper87: there was just an earlier item from tonyb about syncing glance drivers with glance core team in gerrit 15:19:25 flaper87: sigmavirus24 might have more context, it came up in last week's meeting 15:19:41 ttx: mtreinish: so if you have an opinion on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229152/ please chime in 15:19:44 to the review i mean 15:20:08 will have a look 15:20:12 * sigmavirus24 readss crollback 15:20:13 fwiw it sounds like this fixes some major issues with multipath storage in kilo, but at this point i think people are going to just have to patch that in 15:20:31 or upgrade nova/cinder to liberty 15:20:41 all the gate failures are unrelated? 15:20:54 bknudson_: yeah probably, we don't test multipath in the gate 15:21:01 Phase II (6-12 months): Only critical bugfixes and security patches are acceptable 15:21:32 yeah i know, this was more or less falling under the bug fix tent 15:22:04 as in critical if you're using multipath, but still, it's a very large change and i'm not really on board for bringing that in 15:22:04 my understanding of critical is gate-breaking 15:22:06 at this point 15:22:25 yeah, or breaks upgrade, etc 15:22:34 it is a significant change indeed 15:22:43 mriedem: I think I'm -1 just on the fact it has 7 commits backported in one patch 15:22:54 if that was exactly the code used in liberty/mitaka I guess the risk would be limited 15:23:13 from the commit it's a copy of a file from the lib rather than really backporting all the changes 15:23:15 but I have no idea how much of a snowflake it is 15:24:22 we can move on, i'm just bringing attention to it 15:24:39 that said it seems to be isolated to use_multipath enough 15:24:41 softlayer was hitting multipath issues on kilo and i pointed that change out to them, so they were happy to see someone had done it, 15:24:46 but i told them to just upgrade nova to liberty 15:25:56 moving on 15:26:13 #topic proposed stable:follow-stable-policy tag 15:26:20 ohai 15:26:22 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/follows-stable-policy-tag 15:26:36 So here is the tag definition I plan to push 15:26:59 I'd rather have you all agree with it before we try to convince the TC that it would be a good idea 15:27:20 ok, i need to read through this quick (skim it) 15:27:46 one bikeshed area is on the naming (obviously) 15:28:02 the stable: prefix is there to mean that it's owned by the stable team 15:28:14 so the second "stable" there is a bit redundant 15:28:25 could be stable:follows-policy 15:29:02 i'm fine with that 15:29:36 ok, renaming then 15:29:45 the doc looks good to me. 15:31:30 * mtreinish slowly reads 15:34:02 ok, this looks like a good draft to me 15:34:26 So ... "healthy CI jobs, routinely backporting bug fixes and reviewing them, doing releases" - we should put that in the stable policy itself 15:34:41 yeah, i can add that if you want 15:35:31 #action mriedem to update the stable policy with what it means to be actively maintaining stable branches for a project 15:35:34 Let me include your "rationale" changes 15:36:04 ok 15:36:07 anything else on this? 15:36:37 i'll look forward to the governance review if not 15:36:44 ttx: thanks for taking the time to write this up 15:36:47 not from me, looks good to me 15:36:47 #action ttx to propose corresponding governance review 15:37:05 will push today or tomorrow 15:37:10 i'm going to skip the tooling section of the meeting agenda since that's a WIP 15:37:17 #topic open discussion 15:37:23 anyone have anything? 15:37:48 i'll take that as a no and we can end early 15:37:52 thanks everyone 15:37:56 #endmeeting