14:00:06 <marios> #startmeeting tripleo
14:00:07 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Jun  8 14:00:06 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is marios. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:08 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:10 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tripleo'
14:00:20 <marios> #topic agenda
14:00:20 <marios> * Review last minutes & action items
14:00:20 <marios> * One off agenda items
14:00:20 <marios> * Bugs & Blueprints
14:00:20 <marios> * Projects releases or stable backports
14:00:22 <marios> * Specs
14:00:25 <marios> * open discussion
14:00:27 <marios> Anyone can use the #link, #action and #info commands, not just the moderator«É
14:00:29 <Tengu> marios: wow, that's a on-time start. Even a Swiss couldn't do better :D
14:00:30 <marios> hello OFTC #tripleo o/
14:00:40 <marios> who is around today ? o/
14:00:40 <slagle> hello
14:00:48 <tkajinam> hi
14:00:54 <jlarriba> o/
14:01:00 <jbadiapa> o/
14:01:42 <marios> great thanks all for joining ... lets get started and folks will catch up as usual ;)
14:01:55 <marios> #topic review last meeting logs & action items
14:02:07 <marios> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2021/tripleo.2021-05-25-14.00.html
14:02:19 <marios> anyone have something to bring up from last meeting? now is the time
14:02:22 * marios checks logs
14:02:35 <mwhahaha> hola
14:03:00 <weshay|ruck> 0/
14:03:05 <rlandy> o/
14:03:11 <marios> i think the biggest item of discussion last time was the proposal for moving to independent and and stein/queens etc but we have an item for that today as well
14:03:20 <marios> lets move on t
14:03:21 <arxcruz|rover> o/
14:03:30 <marios> #topic one off agenda items
14:03:35 <marios> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-meeting-items
14:03:42 <pleimer_> o/
14:03:44 <marios> taking them in order as usual
14:03:51 <marios> Tengu: please go ahead when you're ready
14:03:52 <Tengu> oh, meaning that's for me
14:04:12 <Tengu> So, I have 2 open specs for review, and would love to get some more feedback, or even merge them
14:04:18 <Tengu> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/733652
14:04:30 <Tengu> that one is about improving logging withint tripleo deployment (and, well, overall CLI)
14:04:41 <Tengu> I've addressed latest comment by cloudnull - soooo a new review would be nice
14:04:45 <marios> did we discuss the ansible logging one at PTG /me doesn't recall
14:04:53 <Tengu> weeee did, yes
14:04:53 <marios> (not that it matters just wondering)
14:05:00 <marios> Tengu: k thanks i didn't review that one yet
14:05:01 <opendevreview> Simon Dodsley proposed openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: Add Pure Storage FlashBlade Manila driver  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/792850
14:05:04 <Tengu> there was an on-going PoC
14:05:18 <weshay|ruck> 0/
14:05:21 <Tengu> marios: it's an old spec actually, but since it didn't merge in the previous release...
14:05:22 <marios> Tengu: ah it was posted in 2020
14:05:23 <fultonj> o/
14:05:26 <Tengu> :)
14:05:31 <Tengu> exactly. So a revival.
14:05:33 <Tengu> or reboot.
14:05:35 <Tengu> or whatever.
14:05:41 <marios> Tengu: so fwiw i think we can/should merge the healthcheck one
14:05:43 <mwhahaha> we've also made changes since it was originally proposed
14:05:45 <Tengu> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/787535
14:05:51 <Tengu> that's the second spec about healthchecks
14:05:57 <marios> Tengu: it has enough votes, it got some feedback and there is no -1
14:06:03 <Tengu> mwhahaha: yeah, I've adapted that one accordingly
14:06:14 <mwhahaha> I'm not certain the logging one should be done as we don't know if we'll continue to leverage ansible int eh same way
14:06:19 <mwhahaha> i think that one needs more discussion
14:06:27 <Tengu> marios: yep, guess we can merge the healthcheck one and drop some of the things.
14:06:27 <marios> anyone object to me merging https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/787535 (healthcheck) ?
14:06:43 * marios counts to 10
14:06:51 <Tengu> mwhahaha: yep, that's also why I've pushed that topic to the meeting - get some attention, and open discussion. The logging is... well, it's complicated.
14:07:03 * cloudnull no objections
14:07:24 <marios> Tengu: k merged +/787535
14:07:34 <marios> well, worfklowed anyway
14:07:36 <Tengu> I'll prepare a patch disabling the healthchecks by default, that's a first step.
14:07:39 <opendevreview> Merged openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: Add OS::TripleO::UndercloudUpgradeEphemeralHeat  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/785297
14:07:40 <Tengu> marios: thanks :)
14:07:57 <marios> Tengu: do we need to discuss the logging one or some aspect of it here?
14:08:04 <Tengu> and, yeah, the one about logging would love some more feedback here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/733652
14:08:27 <Tengu> marios: I didn't prepare things for a live discussion, but if there are concerns right now, we can take a moment? depends on the other topics.
14:08:37 <Tengu> or we can go with the comments, maybe better
14:08:55 <marios> Tengu: should we leave it to the open discussion, depending on time if there isn't something very specific to mention at this point?
14:09:08 <Tengu> marios: good idea.
14:09:31 <marios> OK thanks Tengu does anyone have any more questions comments concerns about the items raised by tengu?
14:09:42 <tkajinam> Tengu, I just left one comment for healthcheck one but it is not a blocker
14:09:56 <tkajinam> I'm ok to merge that now as it is
14:09:59 <marios> tkajinam: should i remove workflow?
14:10:01 * marios checks
14:10:03 <tkajinam> sorry to be late
14:10:04 <opendevreview> Simon Dodsley proposed openstack/puppet-tripleo master: Add Pure Storage FlashBlade backend  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-tripleo/+/792849
14:10:05 <tkajinam> marios, no
14:10:20 <tkajinam> even if we'd change the plan then we can update the spec at that time
14:10:40 <marios> tkajinam: ok
14:11:13 <marios> so moving on if there is nothing else... holding for a few more seconds
14:11:23 <Tengu> tkajinam: guess your comment would be a "step 2" - thanks for raising this one.
14:12:07 <marios> We have quite a few community items:
14:12:14 <marios> #info http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-June/022824.html * [TripleO] Proposing ysandeep for tripleo-ci core
14:12:14 <opendevreview> Leif Madsen proposed openstack/tripleo-heat-templates master: Fix typo in ceilometer-write-qdr environment file  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/795345
14:12:21 <marios> congrats and thanks to ysandeep|ruck++
14:12:43 <marios> i haven't seen any objections so we can add him to the core group now
14:12:43 <ysandeep|ruck> thanks all ++
14:12:57 <opendevreview> Merged openstack/openstack-tempest-skiplist master: Add rhos-17 test skip where wallaby test is included  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-tempest-skiplist/+/795327
14:13:00 <marios> #info http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-June/022859.html * [TripleO] tripleo repos going Extended Maintenance stable/train OK? (not yet IMO)
14:13:15 <marios> #info train is now in extended maintenance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/790778
14:13:25 <marios> any comments on that ^^^ ?
14:13:34 <marios> (we didn't really have much choice ;) )
14:13:46 <marios> and we can still merge things to it, it just means no more tagged release for train
14:14:06 <marios> #info proposal for making a list of folks in each of the tripleo squads so new contributors (or even old contributors ;)) can know who to add to reviews
14:14:09 <marios> tkajinam: ^^^
14:14:38 <marios> this came from an email thread and the idea is to have some list of folks per squad so you know who to add to reviews
14:14:42 <marios> thanks to tkajinam for raising it
14:14:53 <marios> for example there https://docs.openstack.org/tripleo-docs/latest/contributor/index.html
14:14:53 <jlarriba> that would be very useful for newcomers to the community ;)
14:14:57 <tkajinam> ;-)
14:15:19 <marios> are there are comments about that? what do folks think? Will you agree to be listed there?
14:15:25 <Tengu> marios: iirc one can check project owner list, and then ping the relevant folks... That's available on gerrit already.
14:15:27 <marios> we can only make it work if folks agree to be included
14:16:19 <marios> Tengu: does it really work though? I am guessing one or two people are listed as owners of our repos (and not say the members of the current squad as it changes? )
14:16:50 <Tengu> hmm, I'm not sure how to access an example with the new gerrit, but I think it's listing the groups of actual cores
14:16:54 <tkajinam> Tengu, to ask very generic question I think that list works. but what I expected initially is something explaining a bit more about coverage of each person
14:16:55 <Tengu> which is already a nice thing
14:17:39 <jlarriba> Tengo: yes, the issue is that we dont really know which cores know more about a specific area of tripleo
14:17:43 <tkajinam> for example to find somebody who can answer questions specific to nova
14:18:08 <opendevreview> Merged openstack/tripleo-specs master: Healthcheck cleaning and consolidation  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/787535
14:18:31 <marios> tkajinam: jlarriba: so i think we can proceed by posting a review to add this into docs, and seeing what the reception about that is
14:18:33 <jlarriba> Tengu, sorry i mispelled your name ^^
14:18:51 <marios> tkajinam: jlarriba: for example, we can add everyone to the review and if anyone objects we remove their name
14:18:54 <marios> thoughts?
14:18:58 <Tengu> jlarriba: ^^
14:19:04 <jlarriba> marios: i think it is a good idea
14:19:13 <marios> well, it doesn't even have to be in tripleo-docs that is just my suggestion maybe there are others?
14:19:16 <Tengu> marios: that would make too much spam to the non-involved ppl...
14:19:41 <marios> Tengu: ;) well, we could just add them and not ask so they don't have any spam? ;)
14:19:54 <marios> Tengu: i am open to suggestions about how to proceed
14:20:03 <Tengu> gerrit notifications are... annoying at some point
14:20:34 <Tengu> but maybe it's really a matter of getting the list up-to-date in the project itself. though, apparently, the new gerrit masks this feature
14:20:47 <Tengu> still didn't find that link back.
14:21:04 * marios needs to wrap this up in a sec as we have a lot of items we can carry on in open discussion time allowing
14:21:07 <ysandeep|ruck> Isn't there a way reviewer get added to reviewer list on a particular patch based on repo/files?
14:21:13 <jlarriba> Tengu: I asked people for that and they werent able to find that list in gerrit either
14:21:34 <marios> ysandeep|ruck: not that i know of but that sounds useful ;)
14:21:44 <Tengu> https://review.opendev.org/admin/repos/openstack/nova,access
14:21:57 <Tengu> Browse -> Repositories
14:21:58 <tkajinam> https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/0319cee8020840a3016f46359b076fa6b6ea831a,members
14:22:09 <Tengu> and, yeah, there's Browse -> members
14:22:16 <Tengu> Browse -> groups   sorry
14:22:32 <ysandeep|ruck> In rdo gerrit.. i noticed some people get added automatically on some repos.. need to check how it works.
14:22:41 <marios> Tengu: when i tried tripleo-heat-templates i get Cannot parse URL as a Gitiles URL
14:22:47 <Tengu> gor instance, nova_core:  https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/54f6a1ec13b7453596635e8708f1b60bfd281ebd,members
14:22:47 <marios> Tengu: https://review.opendev.org/plugins/gitiles/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+log/7c03dc03868fe3adb9a11fa6f4921379c2a41857/project.config
14:23:02 <marios> Tengu: but the request isn't just about 'who works on tripleo-heat-templates'
14:23:09 <marios> Tengu: more like who is in each squad
14:23:16 <marios> Tengu: deployment, upgrades, storage, CI etc
14:23:37 <Tengu> yeah.. I'm just trying to find out if that info is already available, but apparently it's a nope.
14:23:39 <marios> Tengu: because tripleo-heat-templates is something we all work on for eaxmple
14:23:40 <jbadiapa> it is kind of the roster for tripleo-upstream, I guess
14:23:58 <Tengu> jbadiapa: exactly.
14:24:05 <marios> k so i haven' heard a counter proposal to 17:18 < marios> tkajinam: jlarriba: so i think we can proceed by posting a review to add this into docs, and seeing what the reception about that is
14:24:29 <marios> do we have a volunteer to lead this effort and post the review? jlarriba tkajinam ;) ^^ ?
14:25:20 <jlarriba> marios: yes, no problem I can post the review (after some out-of-the-meeting) conversation ;)
14:25:27 <marios> thank you jlarriba
14:25:44 <tkajinam> marios, jlarriba I can help as well.. but thinking of something more flexible like etherpad
14:25:47 <tkajinam> rather than docs
14:25:56 <tkajinam> we can talk about that later
14:25:57 <marios> #info jlarriba to post review to tripleo-docs so we can start the discussion about that and see who wants to be included
14:26:03 <marios> thank you jlarriba tkajinam
14:26:15 <marios> moving on now in a second ... holding for any final comments
14:26:16 <jlarriba> tkanijam lets discuss later
14:26:50 <marios> #info tripleo repos to move to independent (disucssion part #2 - discussed in last meeting)
14:27:14 <jlarriba> tkajinam ^^
14:27:20 <marios> so we talked about this in the last meeting and hopefully folks have had some time to digest
14:27:33 <marios> i said we would discuss it at least once more before proceeding so...
14:27:41 <marios> comments or concerns about this?
14:27:52 <marios> #link https://releases.openstack.org/reference/release_models.html#independent
14:27:57 <marios> weshay|ruck: ^^
14:28:00 <weshay|ruck> aye
14:28:03 <weshay|ruck> thanks for raising
14:28:14 <weshay|ruck> there will be an email thread soon as well for comment
14:28:17 <marios> if there are no concerns then we are planning on sending something out to the list this week
14:28:24 <weshay|ruck> ++
14:29:10 <marios> ok... moving on in a few seconds if there is nothing raised about that here (you can comment on the list too once we post it)
14:29:11 <slagle> do we plan to make the change for xena?
14:29:25 <marios> slagle: well, don't know if we have enough time for that. maybe not
14:29:31 <opendevreview> Cedric Jeanneret proposed openstack/tripleo-specs master: Remove now useless placeholder  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/795351
14:29:46 <marios> slagle: we may cut the Xena branch and then it will take effect afterwards, but it depends on how long the review process takes etc
14:30:00 <marios> slagle: if it is really quick and there are no objections, then yes in time for xena
14:30:01 <slagle> ok, thanks
14:30:56 <marios> ok, moving to the next item then
14:31:00 <marios> #info retiring stein and queens (tag as EOL upstream - disucssion part #2 - discussed in last meeting)
14:31:20 <marios> this is the second part of the proposal raised in the last meeting, less controversial though... ^^^
14:31:37 <marios> some of the discussion last time was about whether we want to keep Q for a bit, since it gives us feedback upstream
14:31:50 <marios> but i don't think it is worth the effort, because the traffic is very low
14:31:57 <marios> queens - for tripleo-heat-templates & tripleo-common & python-tripleoclient 23 commits since Nov 21 2020 https://gist.github.com/marios/b3155fe3b1318cc26bfa4bc15c764a26#gistcomment-3752102
14:32:15 <marios> stein - 9 commits https://gist.github.com/marios/b3155fe3b1318cc26bfa4bc15c764a26#gistcomment-3755127
14:32:38 <mwhahaha> stein was broken for a long time
14:32:45 <mwhahaha> so i think it just got bypased
14:32:49 <mwhahaha> i'd eol that one at least
14:32:55 <marios> 'worth the effort' because we have to fix some of those queens jobs first, and then it would just continue to take resources away from newer branches and as mentioned we have a very low commit count there so...
14:33:10 <marios> mwhahaha: yes i think stein is without question
14:33:19 <marios> mwhahaha: the discussion really here is if we want to keep queens for a bit longer
14:33:31 <marios> mwhahaha: we did rocky last cycle so stein/queens are next
14:33:56 <marios> ok lets make it very specific
14:34:00 <mwhahaha> imho we probably should just eol queens since the ci is broke too. and we dropped most good coverage
14:34:06 <marios> does anyone object to us EOL queens?
14:34:25 <marios> (we will post something to the list for this as well so you can comment there too, just trying to get any intital discussion here)
14:34:56 <marios> ramishra: ^^^ ?
14:35:51 <marios> k then we can proceed i think weshay|ruck ? at least lets post it to openstack-discuss and see if there is further discussion there
14:36:00 <marios> moving on in a sec if there is nothing further here...
14:36:43 <ramishra> marios: I've been asking for it since long, so I won't object:)
14:37:14 <marios> ramishra: yeah i was more referring to keeping queens i though it was your suggestion that we keep it for the check/gate coverage it gives us
14:37:39 <marios> ramishra: which i understand in theory but looking at the commits i don't know if we can justify it in practice
14:38:05 <ramishra> I've changed side since long :D , I don't propose queens patches upstream anymore
14:38:24 <marios> ramishra: ack thanks ok then
14:38:41 <weshay|ruck> marios, yup.. we'll get the email out
14:38:44 <marios> moving on
14:38:52 <marios> (jlarriba) Question: during PTG, there were some arguments in favor of removing ansible from tripleo because of distribution changes. Has any decision been taken?
14:38:56 <marios> question from jlarriba
14:39:09 <marios> this was exploratory work from mwhahaha and cloudnull ... can you answer this ? ^
14:39:14 <marios> i don't know what the status of that work is
14:39:28 <mwhahaha> still investigating, no time line
14:39:36 <jlarriba> yes, we are working heavily in B&R with tripleo-ansible, and we dont know if we should start planning to switch away from ansible or continue to invest on it
14:39:38 <mwhahaha> but we don't want to increase reliance on ansible specific stuff
14:40:07 <mwhahaha> we'll likely still support ansible playbook execution
14:40:11 <mwhahaha> but it may change how that occurs
14:40:17 <mwhahaha> so careful
14:40:17 <marios> i guess we can say not in X timeframe mwhahaha ?
14:40:24 <opendevreview> Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/puppet-tripleo master: Allow tuning timeouts for rabbitmq pacemaker resource  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/puppet-tripleo/+/795302
14:40:29 <mwhahaha> TBD
14:40:34 <marios> :)
14:40:46 <jbadiapa> mwhahaha, is the directord thing ? or is there something else?
14:40:51 <mwhahaha> TBD
14:40:58 <jbadiapa> ok
14:41:15 <marios> we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an non ansible deployment tool
14:41:16 <marios> :D
14:41:27 <jbadiapa> XDDDD
14:41:29 <marios> sorry couldn't resist
14:41:34 <mwhahaha> like i said, we'll likely still support the execution of playbooks
14:41:38 <mwhahaha> but that may change how it happens
14:42:14 <jlarriba> mwhahaha, ack
14:42:25 <marios> ok moving on i think ?
14:42:30 <jbadiapa> is the a plan or idea for puppet as well?
14:42:54 <mwhahaha> we don't have a plan for puppet at the moment
14:43:02 <jbadiapa> thx
14:43:03 <mwhahaha> all things may be on the table
14:43:07 <mwhahaha> we'll see
14:43:44 <marios> man we are really eating time today
14:43:48 <marios> moving on folks sorry
14:44:03 <marios> i am going to try and get through the rest of the community items quickly to allow storage to raise their items
14:44:09 <marios> please interrupt me if you want to raise something
14:44:15 <marios> releases
14:44:21 <marios> #info https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/794251 * Make a release for tripleo victoria repos
14:44:22 <fultonj> storage only needs 30 seconds
14:44:30 <marios> #info https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/794583 * Make final train tags tripleo repos before extended maintenance
14:44:41 <marios> i will post ussuri soon too
14:45:08 <marios> note from tkajinam     FYI: We are creating the final stable/train release now for puppet moduels so once it is cut off then we expect consistent release between puppet and TripleO
14:45:12 <marios> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/792820
14:45:19 <marios> #info tripleo and oooq moved to OFTC
14:45:30 <marios> obviously everyone here knows this already ;) ^^
14:45:38 <marios> #info doc update at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-docs/+/793824
14:45:47 <marios> #info     posted chan ops/admin update https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/793827
14:45:54 <marios> I just added some folks so we can have representation across timezones if th is is needed (e.g. to deal with trolls?). If any other tripleo-core would like to have op access please post a review similar to project-config/+/793827  and add at least one other tripleo-ci core as reviewer?
14:46:19 <marios> (tkajinam) Q. Do we still use tripleo-puppet-elements ? https://opendev.org/openstack/tripleo-puppet-elements
14:46:29 <marios> tkajinam: i think we do, at least the image_yaml refers to some of those elements
14:46:40 <tkajinam> if that is still required then I'll fix it
14:46:41 <marios> tkajinam: ^^ please go ahead while i go fetch an example
14:46:50 <tkajinam> if that is no longer used then I'll drop it
14:46:59 <tkajinam> it's heavily outdated
14:47:03 <mwhahaha> yes we still use parts of it
14:47:17 <marios> tkajinam: e.g. there https://opendev.org/openstack/tripleo-common/src/branch/master/image-yaml/overcloud-images-python3.yaml
14:47:28 <marios> tkajinam: so that one refers to overcloud-base for example which is from tpe
14:47:29 <tkajinam> mwhahaha, marios ok
14:47:58 <marios> k thanks tkajinam mwhahaha
14:48:08 <marios> any comments or concerns about any of those community items please?
14:48:12 <tkajinam> the main proboel is puppet-modules which is included in the list
14:48:25 <tkajinam> so I'll continue fixes. thx
14:48:56 <marios> thanks tkajinam. k lets move on then
14:48:59 <marios> storage :D
14:49:02 <marios> fultonj: please go ahead
14:49:09 <fultonj> #info cephadm integration updates 1: hci working + documented, progress on ganesha + monitoring stack, standalone-scenario004 will be updated soon to use cephadm
14:49:14 <fultonj> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22cephadm_ganesha%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged)
14:49:17 <fultonj> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22cephadm_monitoring%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged)
14:49:27 <fultonj> #info cephadm integration updates 2: cephadm/ceph-ansible packages in -stream respos used by quickstart, working on RBD before overcloud, planning to remove {deployment,environments}/ceph-ansible/* by end of X
14:49:34 <fultonj> #link https://cbs.centos.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8439
14:49:35 <fultonj> #link https://cbs.centos.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3726
14:50:22 <fultonj> #info tl;dr progress on ceph-ansible removal, we expect to remove it before X ends
14:50:27 <fultonj> (that's all)
14:50:40 <marios> thank you fultonj
14:50:41 <fmount> thanks fultonj
14:50:52 <marios> fultonj: are the HCI stuff yours?
14:50:56 <marios> sorry fmount i meant ^
14:51:02 <fultonj> yeah
14:51:17 <fultonj> #link https://docs.openstack.org/project-deploy-guide/tripleo-docs/latest/features/cephadm.html#scenario-deploy-hyperconverged-ceph
14:51:36 <fultonj> requires pacific-dev container ATM
14:52:33 <marios> are there are comments concerns questions for the storage team please ?
14:53:17 <marios> moving on...
14:53:24 <marios> thanks all for the items raised
14:53:35 <marios> #topic Bugs and blueprints
14:53:35 <marios> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/
14:53:35 <marios> #link https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/openstack/tripleo-ansible
14:53:35 <marios> #link  https://launchpad.net/tripleo/+milestone/xena-1
14:53:37 <marios> #link https://launchpad.net/tripleo/xena
14:54:03 <marios> usual reminder please keep your bug status up to date, especially check https://launchpad.net/tripleo/+milestone/xena-1 any bugs you may have been involved with
14:54:14 <marios> anything bug related folks want to raise here?
14:54:29 <marios> (me moving quickly unless folks speack up cos time)
14:54:47 <marios> #topic Project releases or stable backports
14:54:59 <marios> we already covered the releases, unless there is any specific request or comment here?
14:55:21 <mwhahaha> https://review.opendev.org/q/I86c6d1d060885d0a99b0e0c72cade97ee7833313
14:55:27 <marios> #topic specs
14:55:29 <marios> #info https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/tripleo-specs
14:55:48 <marios> ci team would like to merge https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/772442 soon
14:55:56 <marios> does anyone object to us doing so? ^^^
14:56:00 <marios> rlandy: ^^
14:56:21 <rlandy> marios: thanks for raising
14:56:34 * marios cant see any other spec in https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/tripleo-specs apart from the ones Tengu already mentinoed
14:56:42 <marios> looks like we merged the stuff we discussed at ptg, or almost merged
14:56:45 <Tengu> marios: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-specs/+/795351  some cleanup
14:56:54 <Tengu> not a spec, just.... cleaning :)
14:56:57 <marios> Tengu: thanks
14:57:03 <Tengu> (sorry, I'm on another mtg)
14:57:07 <marios> Tengu: np :D
14:57:22 <marios> rlandy: i didn't hear any objections ;) so lets merge
14:57:30 <rlandy> yay - thanks
14:57:37 <marios> done#
14:57:47 <marios> and just in time
14:57:52 <marios> #topic open discussion
14:57:53 <marios> Anything else that folks want to bring up to the meeting?
14:58:25 <mwhahaha> jfyi we haven't been testing some modules in tripleo-ansible
14:58:33 <mwhahaha> https://review.opendev.org/q/I5f15e26332d2b8b1e53539d58fe095997f3151c9
14:58:37 <mwhahaha> trying to fix but it's complicated
14:58:50 <mwhahaha> master has been fixed, stable branches need some work
14:59:01 <marios> thanks mwhahaha i had a look at the wallaby one this morning but looks like deps conflicts
14:59:15 <mwhahaha> yea we'll likely need to change how we do doc requirements
14:59:24 <mwhahaha> was going to poke at it today
14:59:40 <mwhahaha> right now we symlink doc-requirements to molecule-requirements
14:59:51 <mwhahaha> which causes an issue with upper-constraints
14:59:57 <mwhahaha> fun with source
15:00:04 <marios> OK we are at time now
15:00:25 <marios> so thanks all for the discussion today, next meeting Tue 22 June
15:00:40 <marios> #endmeeting tripleo