17:00:49 #startmeeting tc 17:00:49 Meeting started Tue May 27 17:00:49 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:49 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:49 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 17:01:05 Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. 17:01:09 Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 17:01:14 #topic Roll Call 17:01:24 o/ 17:01:44 o/ 17:01:52 o/ 17:02:53 o/ 17:03:57 noted absence: c a r d o e 17:04:28 bauzas is joining late 17:05:07 courtesy ping: frickler, mnasiadka 17:05:40 am unsure if spot z is out today, or if i left her in the list of absentees on the wiki from the past week 17:05:43 \o 17:06:36 o/ 17:06:41 #topic Last Week's AIs 17:07:07 we had one on the quantum resolution that we merged 17:07:11 #link https://pypi.org/project/quantum/ 17:07:31 fungi: clarkb ty for taking action and deleting the openstack content there and transfering ownership 17:07:44 yw 17:07:51 that was all fungi 17:08:24 nice; the rest of the AIs from last week were around DCO 17:08:56 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/950463 ([resolution] Replace CLA with DCO for all contributions) 17:09:23 ^ this was proposed to address a few AIs we took 17:09:31 there's been quite a lot of review there 17:10:06 there's a bunch of associated tooling changes up for review in parallel with that so we can get as much of a head start as possible 17:10:14 (the Unresolved comments don't make much sense to me honestly) 17:10:33 ah, nice.. do link us if you have them handy, fungi 17:10:57 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 (Replace CLA instructions with DCO) 17:11:07 ^ i took a stab at the contributor doc update 17:11:15 ty for the review there gmaan 17:11:18 ++, i left some comment otherwise lgtm 17:11:53 ack, i'll make some changes today 17:12:22 thanks 17:12:53 jbryce checked with lawyers about a couple of things during the past week 17:13:23 one of these was the DCO switchover timeline. If our enforcement date of July 1st was feasible 17:14:31 and the other was if there needed to be a stop-gap, a revised ICLA 17:15:16 we got feedback here and on the governance proposal.. an excerpt: "the last contributions accepted under the CLA checks would be on 2025-06-30 and all contributions after 2025-07-01 00:00:00UTC would require a DCO check." 17:15:19 o/ 17:15:29 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:dco-signed-off-by+OR+topic:dco-signed-off-by tooling changs for DCO 17:15:40 there are some parents to those too 17:15:47 ty fungi 17:15:53 and some follow-on changes which add generated-by footers to commit messages 17:16:17 I was following on the email lists while at summit, what was the result of doing a patch to a patch? Would it need a DCO and can we do it in Gerrit's interface? 17:17:10 spotz[m]: all new patches after July 1st will need a sign off 17:17:19 spotz[m]: add a Signed-Off-By trailer line in your commit messages (git commit -s will do that automatically) 17:17:23 there's no need to upload a patch just to do a DCO sign off 17:17:53 contributor guide updates will cover it 17:17:54 So I can't keep editing in the interface then:( 17:18:05 you can if you add a Signed-Off-By line 17:19:44 yes, you can edit the commit message too 17:20:02 the only thing that would be wonky would be rebasing existing commits 17:20:16 via the web UI 17:20:28 Hrm will look if you can anywhere. I've honestly only done it command line but if I'm editing docs in someone's patch I sometimes get lazy. Might just do suggest edits. Anyways back to the main discussion vs my corner case:) 17:20:34 you'll need to edit the commit message first, and then click that rebase button 17:21:01 haha, more corner cases as we'll discover in the days to come 17:21:08 i thought we tested and confirmed that you won't need it if you can rebase cleanly in the ui, as long as there's already a signed-off-by from the author or committer 17:21:15 yes 17:21:16 ^ 17:21:21 so would likely only run into that rebasing old changes 17:21:28 yeah, but there're plenty of existing patches 17:21:28 if there's no signed-off-by at all, you'll need to add one and then rebase 17:21:36 which there will be fewer and fewer of over time 17:21:43 not necesserely useless, but potentially outdated 17:21:51 and some might want to pick up and rebase them 17:22:12 but also the error message should be pretty clear to anyone who's at that point used to doing it at the command line already 17:22:13 I'd expect it will be annoying for the next year, but yeah 17:22:22 we'll learn :) 17:22:27 with time it'd be safe to abandon them 17:22:51 okay, that's all the AIs i was tracking 17:22:58 were there any others you were working on? 17:23:08 I actually wonder if we should actually suggest abandoning pat6ches in merge conflict on July 1 17:23:44 abandon? 17:23:52 without sign-off 17:24:09 yeah, might be overkill.. it'd be nice for a bot comment to be added saying that the next commit will need a DCO sign off 17:24:19 I think we can leave them as it is and whenever author comes they can rebase/update commit msg 17:24:51 abandon can be strong action for this situation 17:24:58 gouthamr: ++ 17:25:18 well, it would trigger notificatio nthat smth went off 17:25:23 and there is no way to proceed 17:25:32 from project prespective 17:25:39 bcz we do have many out of dated changes for many reason and we mostly comment there instead of abandon them (unless we have 1-2 years of time checks) 17:25:45 as merge conflicts are not being notified by gerrit 17:26:15 IMO, we can just handle them as we are doing for long standing merge conflict/not updated one 17:26:17 aut6omated comment is better idea 17:26:31 but not sure we'll be doing that :) 17:26:39 if project have policy to abandon such changes considering with some timeline then it is ok 17:27:13 just project maintainers can select patches in UI and abandon can be mass-applied 17:27:17 on the contrary to comment 17:27:40 anyway 17:28:19 sure I am saying we do not need to treat them a new things/action to do than what project do for older/merge conflict changes 17:28:30 right 17:28:32 lets discuss this some more if we have time later in the meeting, or after the meeting 17:29:02 #topic OpenInfra User Survey Questions 17:29:19 the 2025 user survey is live 17:29:54 it'll close out in August, and foundation staff will try and get us the responses after September 17:30:37 we could edit questions if we wanted, but, with the caveat that any major updates would confuse the responses/summarization 17:31:24 can i have your eyes at the existing questions here 17:31:29 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker 17:31:39 line 17 and beyond 17:31:50 is tehre anything blatantly wrong to fix/correct here? 17:33:56 if not, would you like to ask anything new with the caveat shared above? 17:35:54 taking silence as no, if you think of anything please feel free to chime in anytime on this channel 17:36:12 i got an update regarding the 2024 user survey 17:36:49 foundation staff did summarize the survey, but, the raw data dump wasn't shared with PTLs and the TC like the past.. 17:37:48 we were discussing that it was easier to gather this alongside the 2025 data.. 17:37:55 i think it still can be, though people may need to sign an nda if they haven't before 17:38:15 we'll still be given two raw/anonymized survey result dumps.. one from 2024 and 2025 17:38:23 ah, i didn't know of that practice, fungi 17:38:34 is the NDA new? 17:39:12 i don't think so, in the past the foundation had project volunteers agree in writing to not disclose the content of personally identifiable response data 17:39:22 Yeah raw surveys require NDA, the presented information is Anonymized but there's the risk raw data can be put together for identification 17:39:42 NDA is not new 17:40:20 it's basically just a measure to help make respondents feel more comfortable about the privacy of their responses 17:40:35 i see, i meant anonymized data - but called it "raw data" - my bad 17:40:59 i recall receiving the anonymized data from helena or aprice in the past.. 17:42:11 i can follow up privately on this.. does anyone have a concern with the timeline? 17:43:18 Closing it out in August allows for the data to be looked at and results to be presented at Summit 17:43:28 and discussed at the PTG in October 17:46:02 we don't have c a r d o e in today, and i think i need to prep a bit more for the next topic to be more productive 17:47:36 specifically in deriving conclusions from the developer/maintainer survey responses that ildikov shared on the ML: 17:47:55 #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/3YCEOEVDZRG5UU3FMPEP4F6EZIXDAVGU/ (Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs) 17:48:24 can we punt this to next week? or would anyone like to speak on this today? 17:49:07 if anyone has questions about those surveys or the analyses so far, i'm happy to answer them either in the meeting or after 17:49:34 the most important issue is delay in responses ... so let's punt to next week, that fits ;) 17:49:59 hah 17:50:09 I'm also available to discuss :) 17:50:51 i know you're teasing, but i have the monkey side eye meme going off in my head 17:50:54 #topic A check on gate health 17:50:56 will be around next week too 17:51:02 same 17:51:04 thank you very much fungi and ildikov 17:51:08 lets do it next week 17:51:14 +1 17:51:48 any gate concerns to note today? 17:53:31 sounds like smooth sailing 17:53:45 * gouthamr tries not to jinx it 17:53:48 #topic TC Tracker 17:53:50 there were some gerrit outages observed recently, which seem consistent with brief network disruption at/near the hosting provider 17:53:52 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker (Technical Committee activity tracker - 2025.2) 17:54:01 ah, ty fungi 17:54:43 * gouthamr didn't notice them.. but saw opendevstatus posting on various channels 17:55:01 gouthamr: it's late, but I'll note Ironic was severely broken by updates to Neutron's devstack plugin late last week. We have a fix coming down the pipeline, but I'll likely describe the issue in a bug -- we need to have a better way for ML2 plugins to hook into neutron devstack 17:55:18 #undo 17:55:18 Removing item from minutes: #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker 17:55:22 #undo 17:55:22 Removing item from minutes: #topic TC Tracker 17:55:57 JayF: ah, is this on the master branch? 17:56:21 Yeah. When they switched up the wsgi method and moved some things around it made it a bit awkward to get config in from a plugin 17:56:48 we have a functional fix, I'll describe the issue in a bug against neutron/devstack once it's landed and the fire is out 17:57:11 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/networking-generic-switch/+/950559 basically documented in the TODOs in the workaround patch 17:57:46 thank you for the link and the context 17:58:10 "For now, we're relying on a race condition that we reliably win." 17:58:50 :) 17:59:42 well, 4 for 4 at least so far, which is better than the 0-for-N we had going since like, early/mid last week lol 18:00:35 haha, hope there's no optimization committed somewhere that defies that 18:00:43 we're at the hour 18:00:50 is there anything else to note for the minutes today? 18:01:25 i did want to ask how comfortable we are to recommend to project teams to encourage using DCO sign-offs right away? 18:02:02 +1 - I started already that for my changes in codegenerator 18:02:15 ++ 18:03:39 if anyone's familiar with https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers , they could actually show us how to configure local git in case "-s" is too much to type out each time :D 18:04:15 why not to use config? 18:04:21 format.signoff? 18:04:26 yup 18:04:31 that's only for patches 18:04:37 My problem isn't the git side it's the laziness of the gerrit UI side:) 18:05:23 okay lets end this meeting 18:05:27 thank you all for participating 18:05:48 our next meeting will be our monthly Video+IRC meeting 18:05:57 #endmeeting