15:00:13 <gmann> #startmeeting tc
15:00:13 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu Jan 27 15:00:13 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:13 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:13 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
15:00:19 <gmann> #topic Roll call
15:00:22 <gmann> o/
15:00:25 <lourot> o/
15:00:31 <gmann> tc-members meeting time
15:00:37 <dansmith> o/
15:00:40 <Guest292> O/
15:00:50 <jungleboyj> o/
15:01:18 <gmann> not present today: Radosław Piliszek (yoctozepto), Belmiro Moreira (belmoreira)
15:01:18 <ricolin> o/
15:01:53 <gmann> let's start
15:01:56 <gmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
15:01:58 <gmann> ^^ today agenda
15:02:08 <gmann> #topic Follow up on past action items
15:02:39 <gmann> nothing from previous meeting
15:02:42 <gmann> #topic Gate health check
15:02:51 <gmann> any news on gate
15:03:07 <spotz> oo/
15:03:07 <dansmith> I have only had a few things through the gate this past week, but they all went quite smooth
15:03:39 <fungi> activity levels have been on the rise since we're aroubd feature freeze for some projects
15:03:52 <gmann> yeah
15:04:08 <gmann> stable/train cap with older tempest  is merged now.
15:04:10 <diablo_rojo_phone> Hopefully smooth continues to be the theme
15:04:29 <gmann> I think centos8-stream issue still not resolved ?
15:04:31 <fungi> the next few weeks will be our first real-world load test of zuul's persistent state and multi-scheduler capabilities
15:04:45 <fungi> seeing how it handles the openstack rush
15:05:14 <fungi> it's been doing well up to this point, but that was over the holiday lull
15:05:52 <fungi> if something doesn't seem right, please don't hesitate to give folks a heads up in #opendev or #openstack-infra
15:06:51 <gmann> seems passing but few retry failure #link https://zuul.openstack.org/builds?job_name=tempest+tempest-full-py3-centos-8-stream&job_name=tempest-integrated-compute-centos-8-stream&skip=0
15:06:54 <fungi> also we're on a new version of gerrit (3.4) since monday, so aside from already observed ui behavior and visual changes, there's the potential for uncovering regressions like the one we found with signed tags
15:06:57 <gmann> I will monitor those
15:08:14 <gmann> anything else on gate updates?
15:08:35 <jungleboyj> Seems like it has been working ok for us.
15:08:47 <gmann> ok
15:09:00 <gmann> #topic Z Release Cycle Name
15:09:16 <gmann> nomination are closed for naming and election is started on 25th
15:09:37 <gmann> I have started the poll and hope all tc-members received it, if not please let me know
15:09:39 <gmann> #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html#polls
15:09:51 <jungleboyj> ++
15:09:59 <gmann> poll will end on 1st feb or early if all TC members vote
15:10:13 <diablo_rojo_phone> Received!
15:10:18 <spotz> voted!
15:10:22 <gmann> till now only 4 tc-members casted vote,
15:10:55 <jungleboyj> I will cast my vote in 23 hours after my Twitter poll closes.  :-)
15:11:22 <gmann> jungleboyj: ack, what name people preferring in your poll?
15:11:33 <jungleboyj> Zenith right now.
15:11:41 <jungleboyj> https://twitter.com/jungleboyj/status/1486344910693441541
15:12:32 <gmann> tc-members: please cast vote if not yet done. so that we can proceed for the next step of legal checks soon
15:12:35 <diablo_rojo_phone> I feel like that's a bad choice cause it implies we are at the top and going to head downward now?
15:12:50 <dansmith> diablo_rojo_phone: omicron and openstack have peaked
15:12:53 <dansmith> :P
15:12:57 <diablo_rojo_phone> Lol lol lol
15:13:02 <gmann> :)
15:13:35 <jungleboyj> *Sigh*  I hadn't thought of it that way.
15:13:37 <gmann> I will vote this time and zombie is my fav :)
15:13:51 <diablo_rojo_phone> jungleboyj: nor your Twitter voters lol :)
15:14:03 <jungleboyj> People are worried that that is going to bring the 'OpenStack is Dead' jokes.
15:14:17 <spotz> I thought there were some good conversation on this channel a few days ago, like zombie
15:14:18 <jungleboyj> diablo_rojo_phone:  Right.
15:14:27 <jungleboyj> I think of the old TVs that I used to love.
15:14:28 <gmann> more it bring, more it get clarity
15:14:54 <diablo_rojo_phone> Perhaps it's just dansmith and I, jungleboyj
15:15:02 <diablo_rojo_phone> Never seen the show lol
15:15:30 <dansmith> I'm not really worried, I think zombie has the same sort of "past its prime" connotation, even though I expect it to win
15:15:41 <diablo_rojo_phone> Technically as a zombie it would make OpenStack 'living dead' or 'undead'
15:15:41 <dansmith> not worried about zenith I mean
15:15:53 <spotz> Yeah I doubt my cchoicce will win, even then legal..
15:16:02 <dansmith> diablo_rojo_phone: what zombies have you seen that don't smell like something past its prime in the fridge? :)
15:16:03 <gmann> diablo_rojo_phone: yeah
15:16:37 <jungleboyj> *Sigh*
15:16:52 <gmann> anything else on this topic?
15:17:10 <dansmith> no :)
15:17:15 <spotz> Sure, constructive probably not:)
15:17:25 <gmann> #topic Z cycle Technical Elections
15:17:34 <gmann> Its time for the PTL and TC election
15:18:05 <gmann> jungleboyj: and I had volunteer for election official along with existing one. if anyone would like to help please raise patch in election repo
15:18:19 <gmann> I have also proposed the election dates #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/825017
15:18:45 <spotz> belmeiro and I can't if re-running
15:18:50 <gmann> Please review and let me know your feedback. or if it looks ok then any election official can approve it
15:18:54 <gmann> spotz: yeah
15:19:25 <diablo_rojo_phone> I can take a look today.
15:19:29 <gmann> spotz: diablo_rojo_phone can either of you add me in core list in gerrit group this is merged now https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/825009
15:19:32 <gmann> diablo_rojo_phone: thanks
15:20:14 <jungleboyj> Have it open in a tab as well.
15:20:22 <gmann> I think ianychoi[m], andymccr and hspease also around to help
15:20:46 <spotz> I used to know where to do it:)
15:20:54 <gmann> this will be combined election again and for 5 TC seats
15:21:19 <gmann> spotz: https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/208108b62745877449d8e6fce45f44e3cc013e8b,members
15:21:46 <spotz> done!
15:22:00 <gmann> jungleboyj: if you can also raise patch for election official, we can start the process/meetings
15:22:04 <gmann> spotz: thanks
15:22:19 <gmann> anything else on election?
15:22:39 <fungi> i'm always happy to answer process or tooling questions too, if the officials need to ask any
15:22:40 <jungleboyj> gmann: Ok.  Will work on that.
15:22:52 <gmann> thanks
15:22:56 <jungleboyj> fungi:  Thanks!  I will try to not pester you too much.
15:23:29 <gmann> #topic Adjutant need PTLs and maintainers
15:23:46 <gmann> I think I was supposed to remove this from agenda. we will iterate it after election if no leader
15:23:56 <gmann> #topic Open Reviews
15:24:08 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open
15:24:46 <gmann> this need one more vote #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/826243
15:25:21 <gmann> ricolin: I replied on the project health tool patch 3link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/810037/5..6/tools/project_health_check.py#b351
15:25:24 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/810037/5..6/tools/project_health_check.py#b351
15:25:36 <ricolin> gmann, thanks will check
15:25:49 <gmann> thanks
15:25:58 <gmann> I think all other reviews are in good shape.
15:26:05 <gmann> I will check FIPs goal today
15:26:27 <ade_lee__> gmann, thanks -- I think the fips goal is only missing reviews from you and ricolin
15:26:35 <spotz> 7 votes on FIPs
15:26:44 <gmann> ade_lee__: ack. I opened it yesterday but missed it
15:27:05 <gmann> I will do right after meeting
15:27:16 <ricolin> +1
15:27:26 <ade_lee__> thanks - assuming this gets approved, what happens next?
15:27:26 <gmann> #topic Renaming all `master` branches on all repos to `main`
15:27:30 <lourot> Hey o/ so at Canonical for example we have ~80 openstack repos (essentially charms). We could create a `main` branch ourselves, but we wouldn't have permissions to delete `master`. Also not sure how we would make `main` the default branch in Gitea. That's why we wanted to see if there were plans for a coordinated effort or something
15:28:11 <gmann> ade_lee__: you need to propose to goal selected in goal/selected folder and we will see the schedule based on current active goals or so
15:28:37 <gmann> ade_lee__: #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/#selecting-goals
15:28:45 <ade_lee__> gmann, ok - thanks
15:29:14 <gmann> lourot: if we do that, we need to do for all openstack repos
15:29:44 <gmann> anyone remember what was discussed before when master/slave replacement happened in github
15:30:04 <fungi> lourot: the opendev sysadmins have been looking for projects interested in creating new repositories with a different default branch name so that we can make sure things are working as expected, renaming existing branches will be much more involved and premature if there's no confirmation that things actually work with a different default branch name to begin with
15:30:39 <dansmith> is it already decided that we're making the switch?
15:30:49 <gmann> I do not think so
15:31:02 <dansmith> okay good :)
15:31:03 <fungi> i don't recall anyone deciding anything in that regard, no
15:31:30 <jungleboyj> I don't remember discussing this.
15:31:32 <fungi> from opendev's perspective, we want to make sure the collaboratory is able to support projects who want different default branch names, and confirm our tooling supports that correctly
15:31:35 <spotz> Besides what fungi mentiioned I think we've also been waiting for the git community to make their final decision
15:31:38 <gmann> yeah, it is lot of work and lot of configuration/scripts/tooling updates not just repo rename
15:31:54 <dansmith> yeah, allowing new projects to start with main if they want is fine
15:32:02 <dansmith> making sure that's possible I mean
15:32:27 <fungi> spotz: well, opendev has been waiting for the git community to make a decision (or not) in order to inform any potential change in opendev's default for new repositories, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the deciding factor for openstack's repositories
15:32:48 <spotz> We know changing OpenStack and all the projeccts would be an undertaking. So we need to be sure it will work in our systems and those we rely on before we can make a decision
15:33:14 <spotz> As much as I'd like us to change, the ops in me doesn't want us to break:)
15:33:15 <dansmith> or we could decide not to even if it's possible, and then only worry about if new stuff will work with a different branch
15:33:32 <dansmith> not to change existing projects I mean
15:33:56 <lourot> do you know what would happen today if I created project-config/governance reviews for importing a new project from GitHub where the default and unique branch would be `main`. Would the import fail?
15:33:58 <gmann> even before trying in new repo I think we still need updates and to know what all it can break like using master for all and main for new repo in automative scripts/tooling
15:34:04 <fungi> only changing some repos in openstack could be challenging, particularly for integration testing where jobs assume branch names will match between different repositories
15:34:26 <gmann> yeah
15:34:43 <fungi> lourot: that's what we want to test
15:34:52 <fungi> (in opendev i mean)
15:34:53 <gmann> is it final in git community that no once can use master ?
15:35:01 <gmann> *no one
15:35:12 <fungi> lourot: currently the answer as to what will happen on import is unknown
15:35:29 <gmann> and in integration testing/tooling too, it s unknown
15:35:38 <fungi> gmann: no, the git community has only so far made an effort to make sure that people can use any default branch name they want
15:35:49 <gmann> knowing what all break and need change itself need more time to audit/try
15:35:59 <gmann> fungi: ok
15:36:10 <fungi> the most recent word i found on their mailing list was over a year ago indicating they had not themselves decided to change the built-in default for the default branch name
15:36:27 <fungi> #link https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqv9d1yzta.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/
15:36:36 <lourot> I think the default in GitHub now being `main`, the moment when someone will try to get that imported to Gitea/Gerrit will come sooner or later naturally
15:37:28 <fungi> lourot: github is a proprietary and predatory leech on open source, i wouldn't want to follow their lead just because
15:37:48 <fungi> but i would like to test what an import does in that case, yes
15:37:48 <lourot> it's not my point, just saying that someone will try soon to get a repo with `main` imported
15:38:07 <lourot> because it's the default there
15:38:30 <lourot> at least it's our workflow: we create a temp repo on github and we create then project-config/governance reviews to get that imported
15:38:39 <fungi> we have a configuration option where projects can indicate the default branch name they want, and have done some rudimentary testing, but nothing heavy with typical ci jobs et cetera
15:38:58 <gmann> lourot: can please you try that and we can know what are things we need to change or need effort ?
15:39:10 <gmann> and then we test the integration testing thing
15:39:32 <lourot> gmann, yes, would you be OK if I do that with a dummy repo? I wouldn't want to slow down things on a project we'd need fast
15:40:10 <fungi> yes, do keep in mind that renaming back from main to master if it doesn't work out for logistics/integration testing reasons could be even harder, so definitely don't try it with something you need working soon
15:40:32 <gmann> lourot: I am ok for testing dummy
15:40:34 <fungi> though odds are we could do it with a manual push --force from one of the gerrit sysadmins
15:40:48 <gmann> fungi: I do not think we should try to move until we are very much sure
15:40:59 <lourot> perfect, this looks like an action point for me then :)
15:41:02 <fungi> right, i meant for whatever repo you were testing with
15:41:24 <gmann> and more than that I am concerned about the effort it need vs how strongly we want/need to change it
15:41:49 <fungi> lourot: let's sync up in #opendev when you're ready and we'll work through it
15:41:54 <fungi> i'm happy to help
15:41:59 <lourot> fungi, thanks!
15:42:02 <gmann> opendevmeet: fungi thanks
15:42:02 <opendevmeet> gmann: Error: "fungi" is not a valid command.
15:42:14 * fungi is so a valid command!
15:42:22 <gmann> opendevmeet: fungi:  thanks
15:42:22 <opendevmeet> gmann: Error: "fungi:" is not a valid command.
15:42:23 <jungleboyj> he he.
15:42:27 <gmann> lourot: fungi:  thanks
15:42:28 <gmann> :)
15:42:40 <lourot> fungi is not a valid command!
15:42:49 <fungi> hah
15:42:51 <gmann> and after that we will re-discuss on this
15:43:17 <gmann> lourot: you want to keep it in agenda or add it back once we are ready with import experiment ?
15:43:19 * spotz puts in a patch for a fungi command:)
15:43:55 <dansmith> spotz: good luck, I expect that'll be a lot of code
15:44:03 <lourot> gmann, I'll put things back on the agenda when we got some results with the experiment, thanks!
15:44:07 <spotz> hehe
15:44:18 <jungleboyj> dansmith:  Hmmm, I think you are going to need a Lenovo Supercomputer to run that AI.
15:44:19 <gmann> lourot: sure, thanks for brining it here.
15:44:25 * jungleboyj goes to the configurator
15:44:28 <gmann> last thing
15:44:51 <gmann> dansmith: is ready with the ffu testing in grenade
15:45:07 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/grenade/+/826101
15:45:13 <dansmith> yeah, although we need to stop calling it ffu I think.. I've been using that term, but it means something else
15:45:28 <gmann> +1
15:45:32 <dansmith> this is really guaranteeing that people can skip specific releases, so I think skip-level is a better term
15:45:52 <gmann> yeah skip-level much better
15:45:58 <dansmith> so yeah, I'd like to have a meeting with anyone interested in moving us forward with this tick-tock release model to address the cycle length concerns without slowing us down
15:46:30 <gmann> yeah, this is good input for upgrade question we had in that discussion
15:46:30 <dansmith> get a proposal together so we can try to get it in place with kinda smoke testing now (like this) and then hopefully make the AArdvark release where we start
15:47:20 <fungi> right, in the old discussions where we were debating potential models, we did use "skip-level upgrades" to refer to this sort of solution (an alternative to the fast-forward upgrading model we settled on at the time)
15:47:47 <dansmith> yeah, and we've always been anti-skip-level for good reason,
15:47:56 <dansmith> and definitely skipping any random versions is not what we're talking about here,
15:48:09 <dansmith> just a specific "you can skip odd-lettered releases" (yeah I said it)
15:48:50 <gmann> and for 'release cadence'  meeting will be video call (a separate call from TC meeting), what is best time for all interested in that topic to meet?
15:49:02 <dansmith> ++
15:49:21 <gmann> remember our next TC meeting is on 3rd video call
15:49:28 <gmann> may be right after that for an hr?
15:49:40 <dansmith> sure wfm
15:49:52 <dansmith> is nobody else interested in this?
15:50:00 <spotz> I can definitelly leave the room open if y'all want it
15:50:15 <jungleboyj> ++
15:50:27 <gmann> spotz: we can restart as separate meeting itself
15:50:47 <dansmith> I think at least belmiro was, and he's not here
15:50:52 <spotz> Maybe get reps of from the projects who aren't doing the normal release cadence?
15:50:53 <gmann> or continue as we might finish TC meeting soon as per agenda
15:51:38 <dansmith> well, I'm not sure this would really apply to them
15:51:41 <spotz> Oh I meant the video room next week
15:51:47 <dansmith> that's something we need to discuss I guess
15:51:47 <spotz> dansmith: ok
15:52:24 <spotz> Just trying to think of who might be interested
15:53:28 <gmann> let me propose the time on  ML for 3rd feb at 16UTC (right after TC meeting)
15:53:29 <dansmith> we'll need to get buy-in from projects anyway,
15:53:50 <dansmith> we more need to make sure this is something the TC is going to push forward and what the plan is exactly, and then we can start asking projects to agree Ithink
15:54:18 <gmann> yeah, hope we can conclude it as TC stand on it
15:55:06 <gmann> and one more thing before we close.
15:55:42 <gmann> we will check yoga tracer progress in next meeting on 3rd Feb, please check your assigned item #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-yoga-tracker
15:55:54 <gmann> that is all from me today, anything else to discuss ?
15:56:12 <spotz> Not from me
15:56:19 <jungleboyj> Not from me.
15:56:41 <gmann> let's close the meeting. thanks all for joining
15:56:45 <gmann> #endmeeting