21:00:41 <tonyb> #startmeeting stable
21:00:41 <openstack> Meeting started Mon May  9 21:00:41 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is tonyb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:42 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:44 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'stable'
21:00:49 <bknudson> hi
21:00:56 <Daviey> o/
21:00:58 <tonyb> who's heer for the stable meeting?
21:01:13 <tonyb> Hey bknudson, Daviey
21:01:13 <bknudson> I'm as heer as I'll ever by
21:01:18 <bknudson> be
21:01:31 <mriedem> o/
21:01:46 <tonyb> mtreinish: are you around?
21:02:05 <tonyb> #topic Status
21:02:33 <tonyb> To be frank I've been traveling since summit so I don't really know if there is anything here
21:02:49 <Daviey> stable/kilo 2015.1.4 point release?
21:02:52 <mriedem> i haven't seen anything
21:02:57 <tonyb> I know there was a minor issue with nova but I think that fixed now anything else?
21:02:58 <mtreinish> tonyb: yes I am
21:03:06 <mriedem> nova docs job was busted, it's fixed now
21:03:10 <bknudson> There are a couple failures to stable-maint
21:04:11 <tonyb> Daviey: we'll talk about the kilo stuff next.
21:04:26 <tonyb> So pretty mush normal then, stuff breaks and gets fixed :)
21:05:48 <tonyb> #topic Action items from previous meeting
21:05:58 <tonyb> tonyb to get an EOL date for stable/mitaka
21:06:26 <mtreinish> tonyb: so did you get an EOL date for stable/mitaka?
21:06:29 <tonyb> I'll do that today, dhellmann has a nice patch to tidfy up the releases site so I'll base it on his work
21:07:09 <tonyb> mtreinish: at the summit we decided I could pick one that was basically 6months aftyer liberty and do any discussion on the review
21:07:53 <tonyb> mtreinish: so it'll be early May ish
21:07:53 <mriedem> do we know the dates for the boston summit? looks like the EOL date mostly falls after the summit
21:08:12 <bknudson> design summit?
21:08:16 <tonyb> mriedem: they were announced but I don't have them to hand I'll look for them
21:08:27 <Daviey> I've only seen Barcelona date
21:08:33 <tonyb> Boston is the first of the PTG/Summit splits
21:08:47 <tonyb> so the PTG will be in Feb/March and the Summit in May
21:09:13 <tonyb> Daviey: they were on the keynote slides when the venues were announed
21:09:20 * tonyb didn't get a photo
21:10:22 <tonyb> next item ... Daviey to freeze stable/kilo this week and plan for the final release
21:10:35 <mriedem> http://boston.eventful.com/events/openstack-foundation-summit-2017-/E0-001-093058337-1 ?
21:10:37 <tonyb> Daviey: how's that going do you need help?
21:10:41 <Daviey> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cg5m8twUcAAFeEL.jpg May 2017
21:10:44 <Daviey> Bostin ^
21:10:52 <Daviey> 8th
21:11:06 <mriedem> yeah
21:11:08 <mriedem> 2nd week of may
21:11:11 <Daviey> tonyb: I'm all set, but blocked on 2 neutron reviews
21:11:14 <mriedem> so EOL mitaka 3rd week of may
21:11:22 <Daviey> One was raised as a freeze exception
21:11:25 <tonyb> mriedem: sounds fair
21:11:27 <Daviey> and the other just flagged
21:11:34 <mtreinish> Daviey: do you have links?
21:11:38 <tonyb> Daviey: which 2?
21:11:39 <Daviey> I'm not getting any love from neutron-core
21:11:55 <mtreinish> Daviey: let's bother armax :)
21:11:56 <Daviey> Being the 11th hour, and not a clean backport, i'm reluctant
21:12:06 <Daviey> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299028/ (just raised)
21:12:36 <armax> I am all ears
21:12:38 <Daviey> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309653/ , raised properly days ago
21:13:01 <tonyb> hey armax :)
21:13:03 <mriedem> on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299028/ ihar is +2 and it's from a neutron core, however, the liberty and mitaka changes aren't merged
21:13:33 <Daviey> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/094367.html
21:13:54 <mriedem> although on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299028/
21:14:01 <mriedem> there is an advisory associated with it
21:14:32 <mriedem> i'd say no to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309653/ it's not a security issue
21:14:50 <Daviey> Both seem logical to include.. although https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309653/ isn't sec'
21:15:00 <tonyb> Tristan is on VMT so I suspect that his "shoudlne't this get an FFE" is related to the advisory ....
21:15:10 <mriedem> yeah, let's drop the latter
21:15:14 <mriedem> we should probably try and get the former in
21:15:15 <mriedem> given VMT
21:15:19 <Daviey> ok, dropping
21:15:37 * tonyb agrees
21:15:42 <armax> so would the last one standing be https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309653/ alone?
21:15:43 <mriedem> i've abandoned https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309653/
21:15:53 <tonyb> armax: what can we do to land https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299028/
21:15:55 <mriedem> armax: no we just dropped that
21:16:01 <armax> mriedem: ok
21:16:08 <bknudson> comment 29 in https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1558658 -- "It should be relatively quick since the patch is already prepared with tests."
21:16:10 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1558658 in OpenStack Security Advisory "Security Groups do not prevent MAC and/or IPv4 spoofing in DHCP requests" [Undecided,Triaged]
21:16:21 <Daviey> mriedem: YOU BEAT ME
21:16:24 <mriedem> i've restored https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299028/
21:16:25 <bknudson> I was wondering why the bug was public already
21:16:30 <armax> that one merged recently in Newton
21:16:51 <armax> and without some serious mileage in I was hesitant to backport it
21:17:03 <armax> to Mitaka, let alone Liberty and Kilo
21:17:03 <tonyb> armax: okay can you quickly eyeball the backports and then we'll work on merging them all today
21:17:22 <tonyb> Hmmm okay
21:17:41 <Daviey> realistically, i'm not going to get it finished today - as I am on UK time.
21:18:01 <mriedem> you have to budget for biscuits and clotted cream
21:18:20 <tonyb> Daviey: okay,  No pressure.  Thanks for pushing this since summit
21:18:50 <armax> how much time is there left for making a decision?
21:19:21 <Daviey> armax: I'd like t try and get it done for EOD tomorrow?
21:19:40 <tonyb> Daviey: so +24hours?
21:19:44 <Daviey> BTW, here are the current commit hash references and commit count for each project - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/314189/
21:19:51 <Daviey> tonyb: 22 hours would be kinder
21:20:03 <tonyb> Daviey: cool.
21:20:07 <armax> Daviey: if we let it in and then something bad happens we’ll have a broken Kilo without any way of fixing it again
21:20:14 * tonyb is bad with clocks and calendars :)
21:20:28 <Daviey> Tomorrow isn't a hard and fast deadline...
21:20:31 <armax> but I guess I am not saying anything new
21:20:55 <Daviey> ... but distros may be syncing their work schedule to the release.. so it sucks for us to be leate
21:20:56 <bknudson> the keystone changes are as boring as it gets
21:20:58 <Daviey> late*
21:21:36 <armax> if you guys abandoned https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299027/ then the OVS one should be abandoned too
21:21:45 <Daviey> armax: Can you ping me with the likelihood of it getting done tomorrow?
21:21:54 <bknudson> I'd suggest skipping the keystone release. Can't imagine anybody's waiting on those.
21:22:03 <armax> so it’s both https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299027/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299028/ or none
21:22:36 <mriedem> armax: good point
21:23:05 <mriedem> i've restored that first one
21:23:06 <Daviey> bknudson: https://github.com/openstack/keystone/commit/7c7f5210a0515b29ab569606ee33e87d25f1dc62 is the only meaningful commit.. but that is tests rather than changes
21:23:18 <armax> mriedem: ack
21:23:20 <mriedem> but again, liberty and mitaka aren't merged yet https://review.openstack.org/#/q/I39dc0e23fc118ede19ef2d986b29fc5a8e48ff78,n,z
21:23:26 <armax> mriedem: thanks
21:23:40 <armax> mriedem: I think the team has to agree whether we’re risk adverse or risk takers :)
21:23:57 * mriedem is just glad this isn't nova
21:24:09 <tonyb> mriedem: +1
21:24:27 <armax> let me talk to kevin again, to see if there’s some stone left unturned
21:24:36 <armax> we’ll make a decision by tonighit PST
21:24:39 <armax> tonight
21:24:49 <armax> whether the kilo fix is in or out
21:24:51 <mriedem> would be good to at least recreate the failures on these branches and verify the fix before landing them
21:24:59 <mriedem> i'm not sure how easy that is though
21:25:02 <armax> for mitaka and liberty we’ll probably be a little more lax
21:25:20 <Daviey> Remember people do deploy from branch :)
21:25:20 <armax> mriedem: the changes are covered by functional tests, so that at least is good
21:26:39 <tonyb> okay so if I understand correctly ....
21:26:54 <armax> leave it with me, I’ll post comments by the end of today on both https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299027/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/299028/
21:27:06 <Daviey> armax is on point to review those 2 changes and get back to me?
21:27:07 <tonyb> armax: will work with keven do decide on the fate of the 2 reviews in question in the next few hours
21:27:21 <armax> which I believe these are the outstanding kilo backports
21:27:36 <armax> Daviey: yes
21:27:39 <Daviey> Yep. just neutron blocking 2015.1.4
21:27:49 <tonyb> if they're goign in I can help +w them into the gate so that when Daviey is up and running (his) tomorrow he has a clear path
21:27:55 <tonyb> does that sound right?
21:27:57 <armax> Daviey: the feeback will happen in a form or +2 or -1
21:27:58 <armax> :)
21:28:11 <armax> Daviey: if you want
21:28:18 <Daviey> Release notes are done, reviews welcome - wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/2015.1.4
21:28:34 <armax> Daviey: you can lift your -2 and I’ll add mine right now and if we decide to go ahead we’ll get them in the merge queue while you’re asleep
21:28:36 <Daviey> armax: sounds perfect
21:28:50 <armax> Daviey: up to you
21:29:37 <Daviey> -2's removed
21:29:46 <tonyb> okay so we have a plan
21:29:53 <tonyb> Daviey, armax: Thanks!
21:30:35 <tonyb> #topic Release news
21:30:55 <tonyb> neutron 8.1.0 went out last night
21:31:40 <tonyb> I need to see if anythingthing else needs a release ...
21:32:12 <tonyb> anything else? .. we clearly covered Kilo :)
21:32:21 <Daviey> oh
21:32:35 <Daviey> Kilo will also be EOL... so never again do we need to flog this.
21:33:26 <tonyb> Daviey: corerct.
21:33:50 <tonyb> Daviey: I know I'm new to the scene but I wont be sad when the last coordinated release is done :)
21:34:08 <tonyb> #topic Tagging
21:34:17 <Daviey> +1.. but in other news... my co-orindated release scripts are perfect now.
21:34:28 <tonyb> Daviey: :D
21:34:41 <tonyb> We have 3 requests for stable:follows-policy
21:34:50 <tonyb> Ironic https://review.openstack.org/#/c/310288
21:34:56 <tonyb> TrippleO https://review.openstack.org/#/c/308236/
21:35:03 <tonyb> Murano https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312572/
21:35:12 <mriedem> i'm only familiar with ironic for stable
21:35:19 <mriedem> but lean to +1 on that
21:35:26 <tonyb> They're blocking otehr things so any help/context there would be great
21:35:32 <mriedem> for murano i at least checked they run the periodic stable unit test jobs
21:35:41 <mtreinish> yeah, I was gonna say I don't think I've ever seen anything stable from tripleo or murano before either
21:35:45 <mriedem> i have no idea about tripleo
21:36:10 <tonyb> mriedem: Yeah I'm in the same boat, they seem like odd requests to me :/
21:36:12 <bknudson> super stable.
21:36:15 <Daviey> I looked briefly at the commit history of Tripleo... looked reasonably mature
21:36:54 <tonyb> Daviey: I'm worried about the "we backport features" side of trippleo
21:37:17 <mtreinish> tonyb: do they say that? if so -1 on that tag
21:37:21 * dhellmann slips in the back late
21:37:22 <tonyb> Daviey: I know they've switched views recently I need to revisit those m/l threads
21:37:52 <tonyb> dhellmann: welcome back, we only said nice things about you :)
21:38:06 <tonyb> mtreinish: like I sdia they've switched views recently
21:38:11 <dhellmann> tonyb : don't worry, I read the scrollback ;-)
21:38:16 <tonyb> dhellmann: :)
21:39:22 <dhellmann> if you think it's unusual, it seems reasonable to ask them to wait and for you to observe for a while before adding those tags
21:39:43 <Daviey> tonyb: is it worth considering SOME of the subprojects for inclusion first, so we can watch it a bit closer?
21:39:45 <tonyb> so my view on the tage is that *all* stable/* branches stick with the policy so it $project is good for mitaka but was less strict oin liberty my gut says to -1 the tag request until liberty has EOLd
21:40:11 <dhellmann> that's also fair, as long as it's documented in the tag description
21:40:42 <Daviey> it's a shame to punish a project for the life of an existing release
21:40:44 * tonyb will check but I think it's unclear, so perhaps it needs to be tighter
21:41:02 <dhellmann> we've also discussed, casually, the need to have tags with a "since" value attached
21:41:23 <tonyb> dhellmann: stable:follows-policy>liberty :p
21:41:40 <dhellmann> yeah, either separate tags or a sub-field
21:41:52 <tonyb> dhellmann: Yeah that'd work.
21:42:04 <mriedem> oy
21:42:16 <dhellmann> sub-fields will make some of the tools that are using that repo break (like release tools), though
21:42:27 <bknudson> this ironic change is surprising for stable: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/287134/
21:42:35 <dhellmann> maybe stable:follows-policy-1, -2, -3 for "n releases back"?
21:42:54 <Daviey> dhellmann: how does that follow future releases?
21:42:55 <mriedem> bknudson: note that jroll -1ed it
21:43:17 <dhellmann> Daviey : good question, I'm thinking out loud and that doesn't always work well
21:43:35 <dhellmann> Daviey : I'd hate to see us encoding series names in the tags
21:43:38 <Daviey> dhellmann: yeah, the numeric number would be outdated in release+1
21:44:04 <mriedem> ttx, flaper87 and i discussed this in the review where the tag was proposed,
21:44:05 <dhellmann> although names might be more future proof
21:44:11 <mriedem> so would need to go back and read up on what we decided there
21:44:21 <mriedem> but i think we basically said you're all in or you're not
21:44:27 <mriedem> until the things that aren't in policy are EOL
21:45:01 <jroll> fwiw, I waited til we got our stuff together to propose this for ironic
21:45:02 <dhellmann> so it might take them 3 cycles to get tag approval, even if series 2 follows the policy?
21:45:06 <mriedem> tags getting uber complicated to workaround people doing the wrong things but wanting the shiny gold start seems wrong
21:45:18 <dhellmann> yeah, that's fair
21:45:23 <mriedem> dhellmann: they can drop the oldest branch
21:45:28 <jroll> because kilo was a mess for a while, I think it's happy now, our policy decisions have been decent afaik
21:45:31 <mriedem> i just, i mean, gd, drop the hammer!
21:45:59 <mriedem> anyway, shall we bikeshed in the reviews themselves?
21:46:05 * mriedem has to leave soonish
21:46:10 <dhellmann> yeah, it might be better to say all-or-nothing and reevaluate after kilo is eol
21:46:11 <tonyb> okay so there is work to do here
21:46:34 <Daviey> mriedem: early removal of a release to get tag compliance feels like totally the wrong reasons
21:46:37 <tonyb> We'll do it on the reviews and/or the m/l
21:46:54 <tonyb> #topic Stuck Reviews
21:47:09 <tonyb> anything that isn't on the agenda?
21:47:11 <mriedem> nada
21:47:18 <tonyb> \o/
21:47:29 <tonyb> #topic Tooling
21:47:30 <dhellmann> I just want to drop a gentle reminder that the release team waits for folks on the stable team to look at stable releases before we cut them
21:47:36 <mriedem> Daviey: honestly i'd like to see in the user survey them ask if anyone is making decisions based on tags
21:47:45 <tonyb> dhellmann: thanks.
21:47:49 <dhellmann> there hasn't been a problem with that, so that's just a reminder
21:47:57 <Daviey> mriedem: I doubt they are.. but yes, evidence is good. :)
21:48:06 <tonyb> dhellmann: I know I'm behind, I was traveling last week :(
21:48:13 <mriedem> i'll have my friendly tc rep mtreinish follow up on the user survey part
21:48:27 <dhellmann> tonyb : meh, no one has any expectations of getting things done the week after summit, don't worry
21:49:20 <mriedem> end early?
21:49:21 <mriedem> please
21:49:32 <mtreinish> mriedem: sry, I stopped paying attention. You didn't sign me up for anything did you?
21:49:32 <tonyb> Ihar and I have WiP stuff in release tools to simplify stable tasks
21:49:36 <jroll> mriedem: no, only because you asked
21:49:54 <tonyb> #topic open discussion
21:49:55 <Daviey> tonyb: Any chance of a README?
21:50:11 <tonyb> Daviey: where? on the new tools?
21:50:15 <Daviey> tonyb: yah
21:50:23 <tonyb> Daviey: sure that can be done :)
21:50:26 <Daviey> ta
21:50:33 <tonyb> so we can get out of here .....
21:50:36 <tonyb> meeting times
21:51:19 <tonyb> mriedem_afk: who has now left so can't defend himself has been running the alternate meetings  I'd like to let him off the hook so expect a change in the meeting times
21:51:27 <Daviey> Did i see on the agenda a different channel (#o-m-3) for next one?
21:51:29 <tonyb> I'll call for ideas on the m/l
21:51:49 <mtreinish> oh, I have 1 thing. The tempest kilo removal patch just landed. I kinda jumped the gun on it (I didn't expect it to merge so quickly)
21:52:34 <mtreinish> so we've stopped running kilo on proposed tempest changes, so it'll be good to get the release out the door before too long :)
21:52:48 <tonyb> mtreinish: okay cool.
21:53:20 <tonyb> okay I think we're done here ....
21:53:21 <Daviey> Can i go to bed now?
21:53:26 <tonyb> anything else?
21:53:41 <tonyb> Daviey: yes.  Thanks for stayign up!
21:53:48 <tonyb> Thanks everyone
21:53:55 <tonyb> #endmeeting