| opendevreview | Carlos Eduardo proposed openstack/releases master: [manila] Add 2025.1 Epoxy cycle highlights https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943654 | 02:09 |
|---|---|---|
| elodilles | release-team: is there anything against merging the openstacksdk 4.4.0 new-release requirements patch? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/942889 | 08:55 |
| frickler | elodilles: nope, +3, I just missed to check the results yesterday after the horizon fix was merged | 08:57 |
| elodilles | cool, thanks | 09:07 |
| elodilles | then we are mostly good to go with the branching patches: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:epoxy-stable-branches+is:open | 09:12 |
| elodilles | (with the ones that got no response from teams) | 09:12 |
| frickler | yes, except for oslo, which still has some pending release stack. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942904 should be fine if we informally accept tkajinam as release liaison, but there's a bug stack with unanswered issues on top of it. kacper doesn't seem to be around, neither hberaud :-/ | 09:35 |
| hberaud[m] | frickler: which bug stack? | 09:36 |
| hberaud[m] | I didn't noticed it | 09:36 |
| frickler | ah, I just wrote in the eventlet channel, will repeat here: | 09:37 |
| frickler | hberaud[m]: what about the stack at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942918 , is this intended to be processed before branching 2025.1? | 09:37 |
| frickler | also s/bug/release/ | 09:37 |
| hberaud[m] | no I think we can pause it | 09:37 |
| hberaud[m] | and wait for F | 09:38 |
| hberaud[m] | In all the case, we can séparate both patches to avoid blocking scenarios | 09:38 |
| frickler | hberaud[m]: o.k., then maybe you can just +1 (or +2) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942904 and we can proceed with that | 09:39 |
| hberaud[m] | kacperrh: o/ FYI ^ | 09:39 |
| frickler | oh, is that again a case of ppl being present via matrix bridge, but not being listed online? sigh | 09:40 |
| hberaud[m] | good question, I'm using matrix, so I can see him | 09:41 |
| frickler | well then, maybe the matrix foundation manages to collect enough donations to not only keep running their bridges, but even fix issues like this one ... | 09:43 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/releases master: Release OpenStack-Ansible Caracal https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943674 | 11:36 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/releases master: Release OpenStack-Ansible Dalmatian https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943675 | 11:38 |
| *** iurygregory__ is now known as iurygregory | 11:50 | |
| ttx | #startmeeting releaseteam | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Fri Mar 7 14:00:04 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'releaseteam' | 14:00 |
| ttx | Ping list: release-team armstrong | 14:00 |
| ttx | Agenda at https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/epoxy-relmgt-tracking#L316 | 14:00 |
| elodilles | o/ | 14:01 |
| kacperrh[m] | o/ | 14:01 |
| ttx | #topic Review task completion | 14:02 |
| ttx | - Process any remaining client library freeze exception. (all) | 14:02 |
| ttx | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:epoxy-milestone-3+is:open | 14:02 |
| ttx | Looks like it's all done | 14:02 |
| elodilles | \o/ | 14:03 |
| ttx | - merge cliff release patch: (all) | 14:03 |
| ttx | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942996 | 14:03 |
| ttx | done too | 14:03 |
| elodilles | ~o~ | 14:03 |
| ttx | - Ensure that all new-release patches in requirements repository for the client library releases are merged. This should be an empty list: (all) | 14:03 |
| ttx | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/requirements+branch:master+is:open+topic:new-release | 14:04 |
| ttx | Also all set | 14:04 |
| elodilles | nice | 14:04 |
| ttx | - Early in the week, email openstack-discuss list to remind PTLs that cycle-highlights are due this week so that they can be included in release marketing preparations (elod) | 14:04 |
| ttx | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/Y5HUSBSEJ3ZMX7ITGKZH2U4V76MGZUP5/ | 14:04 |
| ttx | done ok? | 14:05 |
| elodilles | yepp | 14:05 |
| ttx | - Freeze all cycle-based library releases except for release-critical bugs. Independently-released libraries may still be released, but constraint or requirement changes will be held until after the freeze period (all) | 14:05 |
| elodilles | cycle highlight patches are coming slowly | 14:05 |
| ttx | Nothing really to be done | 14:05 |
| ttx | - Propose stable/$series branch creation for all client and non-client libraries that had not requested it at freeze time (elod) | 14:05 |
| ttx | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:epoxy-stable-branches | 14:05 |
| elodilles | as i said in the morning those can be processed | 14:06 |
| elodilles | the open ones | 14:06 |
| ttx | I can approve the ones that were PTL+1ed | 14:06 |
| elodilles | ttx: thanks in advance | 14:06 |
| elodilles | only oslo is the one we have to think a bit | 14:06 |
| elodilles | but if i understand correctly we can continue with the oslo patch as well | 14:07 |
| elodilles | as hberaud[m] and frickler discussed that the oslo releases can wait till 2025.2 Flamingo | 14:08 |
| ttx | Should we wait until Monday to approve the ones that did not get the PTL+1 from their PTL? | 14:08 |
| ttx | (I just pushed the ones who did get the approval) | 14:08 |
| ttx | In the spirit of not releasing too much on a Friday | 14:09 |
| elodilles | ttx: in general i would not wait, but maybe oslo needs an official statement, i don't know | 14:09 |
| frickler | late o/ | 14:09 |
| elodilles | ttx: these are not releases actually, but branch cuts o:) | 14:09 |
| ttx | ok, if those only cut branches I'll push them too | 14:09 |
| elodilles | thanks! | 14:09 |
| opendevreview | Riccardo Pittau proposed openstack/releases master: Release sushy-tools 2.0.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943234 | 14:11 |
| ttx | It's going to take me a few minutes, sorry | 14:11 |
| elodilles | no problem, take your time :) | 14:12 |
| elodilles | we are not in a hurry :) | 14:12 |
| ttx | OK all set | 14:13 |
| elodilles | +1 | 14:13 |
| ttx | Only oslo is left | 14:13 |
| elodilles | sounds OK to me | 14:14 |
| ttx | #topic List cycle-with-intermediary deliverables that have not been refreshed in the last 2 months and send email (ttx) | 14:14 |
| ttx | List came up empty, however I had false positives | 14:14 |
| elodilles | O.o | 14:15 |
| ttx | for some reason the release date calculation in list-deliverables is buggy | 14:15 |
| ttx | Like if you run this command: | 14:15 |
| ttx | tox -e venv -- list-deliverables --series epoxy --deliverable release-test --show-dates --verbose | 14:15 |
| ttx | you get 2024-11-08 instead of 2025-01-30 | 14:15 |
| ttx | I checked the gitea commits API and it seems to return the right date | 14:16 |
| ttx | i did not delve a lot deeper | 14:16 |
| ttx | (list-deliverables queries the gitea commits API to get the author date on the release request commit | 14:17 |
| elodilles | ttx: 2024-11-08 is the patch's creation date: https://paste.opendev.org/show/bJcnWMZW1bDMu26dXwOv/ | 14:17 |
| frickler | well it is the date of the latest release-test patch, yes | 14:18 |
| elodilles | yes | 14:18 |
| ttx | hmm | 14:18 |
| fungi | november 8 is the date on the 2023.1-eom tag | 14:18 |
| frickler | so it looks for the date of the tag and then takes that? | 14:18 |
| fungi | i think it considers 2023.1-eom the highest tagged version | 14:19 |
| fungi | as opposed to 8.0.0 | 14:19 |
| frickler | nope, the commit tagged 8.0.0 was also made on that date, even if the tag was added later | 14:19 |
| ttx | ah | 14:19 |
| fungi | aha! | 14:19 |
| fungi | good eye | 14:20 |
| fungi | so it's dereferencing the tag | 14:20 |
| ttx | I had the issue with others though | 14:21 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [mistral] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943142 | 14:21 |
| * ttx tries to reproduce | 14:21 | |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [trove] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943145 | 14:21 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [keystone] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943153 | 14:21 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [cyborg] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943143 | 14:21 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [OpenStackSDK] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943155 | 14:21 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [zaqar] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943146 | 14:21 |
| frickler | "git show -s 8.0.0" would show the taggig date | 14:21 |
| frickler | *tagging | 14:21 |
| ttx | frickler: yeah, one issue is that list-deliverables does not checkout the target repository, just uses gitea API to retrieve dates | 14:22 |
| fungi | i would not be surprised if asking for the date at the 8.0.0 tag ref returns the commit's date | 14:23 |
| ttx | I had the same issue with networking-baremetal 6.5.0 returning 2024-11-29 | 14:23 |
| frickler | we could check whether there is some API query parameter similar to the "-s" | 14:23 |
| fungi | probably treats it like asking for a branch's date | 14:23 |
| ttx | (it was released on Feb 28, 2025) | 14:24 |
| frickler | networking-baremetal seems to be the same situation | 14:24 |
| fungi | and yeah, the commit for networking-baremetal 6.5.0 has Date: Fri Nov 29 07:54:56 2024 +0000 | 14:24 |
| elodilles | (note that there is a missing '\' in the example command in the process page in the first line) | 14:25 |
| ttx | We could just switch to look up commit dates for the releases repo change | 14:25 |
| ttx | but it is non-trivial to find which one is related to what | 14:26 |
| ttx | anyway, we don't need to solve it now | 14:26 |
| ttx | just wanted to flag it | 14:26 |
| ttx | I will push it to the list of things we need to fix next cycle | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/releases master: [doc] Add a missing line break https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943713 | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [masakari] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943157 | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [nova] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943137 | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [venus] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943162 | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [tacker] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943163 | 14:27 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [barbican] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943159 | 14:28 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [vitrage] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943164 | 14:28 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [octavia] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943138 | 14:28 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [zun] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943140 | 14:28 |
| frickler | +1 | 14:28 |
| ttx | - Send weekly email content (ttx) | 14:28 |
| ttx | this I will do in a few minutes | 14:28 |
| ttx | #topic Assign R-3 week tasks | 14:29 |
| ttx | Given that I'm away on R-2 and R+0, i think I'll take over chairing the meeting with R-3 and R-1 | 14:29 |
| elodilles | ttx: ACK | 14:30 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [freezer] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943151 | 14:30 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [cloudkitty] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943141 | 14:30 |
| ttx | ok all tasks assigned | 14:31 |
| ttx | #topic Review weekly countdown email | 14:31 |
| ttx | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/relmgmt-weekly-emails | 14:31 |
| ttx | next Thursday is March 13, not 14 | 14:32 |
| ttx | Should it be Thursday March 13 or Friday March 14, as we've been advertising for a while now? | 14:32 |
| ttx | I'm ok with Friday | 14:32 |
| ttx | works for y'all? | 14:33 |
| elodilles | yepp, let's keep it 14 if we advertised like that | 14:33 |
| ttx | that is consistent with "All deliverables released under a cycle-with-rc model should have a first release candidate by the end of the week" | 14:33 |
| ttx | email looks good? | 14:35 |
| elodilles | yepp, LGTM | 14:35 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [glance] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943160 | 14:35 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [cinder] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943152 | 14:36 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [watcher] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943154 | 14:36 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/releases master: [Telemetry] Create 2025.1 branch for client and non-client libs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943149 | 14:36 |
| ttx | #topic Open Discussion | 14:36 |
| fungi | i'll prod some teams about release highlights, looks like only octavia and watcher have any published so far | 14:36 |
| ttx | As usual, we are late for registering to PTG -- should we do as usual, one meeting during our usual time? | 14:36 |
| elodilles | fungi: and there are some on the way: | 14:36 |
| ttx | (if yes I can hamdle getting listed) | 14:36 |
| elodilles | manila: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943654 | 14:37 |
| elodilles | glance: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943621 | 14:37 |
| frickler | I wouldn't mind not having a PTG session | 14:37 |
| elodilles | neutron was just updated: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943634 | 14:37 |
| elodilles | ttx: i'm OK with having a session at the usual time | 14:38 |
| ttx | frickler: busy agenda or some other reason? | 14:39 |
| frickler | busy agenda and also just having IRC sessions works well for me | 14:39 |
| elodilles | IRC sessions works for me as well, but maybe once per cycle it's good to have a video conf o:) | 14:40 |
| ttx | I find those useful to advertise what we are doing to a larger crowd, but maybe we can separate it from the usual meeting and you can skip it | 14:40 |
| ttx | I'm also ok just not doing it if we can't get critical mass | 14:41 |
| frickler | ping me if a large crowd really shows up ;) | 14:41 |
| elodilles | :D | 14:41 |
| elodilles | touché | 14:41 |
| elodilles | :] | 14:41 |
| elodilles | anyway, both works for me :) | 14:42 |
| ttx | would not mind talking directly to kacperrh :) | 14:42 |
| ttx | I'l get us on the list, we can always skip it at last minute | 14:42 |
| frickler | ok | 14:42 |
| elodilles | thanks ttx | 14:42 |
| ttx | anything else? | 14:43 |
| elodilles | maybe this patch to talk about a bit? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/939280 | 14:43 |
| elodilles | should we quickly merge it? | 14:44 |
| frickler | oh, ironic-lib, yeah, tough question | 14:44 |
| opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/releases master: Add Neutron cycle highlights (Epoxy release) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943634 | 14:44 |
| ttx | looks like the dependent patch merged | 14:44 |
| elodilles | yepp | 14:44 |
| ttx | what's the status? did we cut a stable branch for it yet? | 14:45 |
| ttx | (there is a reason why we ask deliverables to set by miletone-2) | 14:45 |
| frickler | usually the removal would have to happen by m-2, right? so that's long, long ago | 14:45 |
| elodilles | yepp, there is stable/2025.1 | 14:45 |
| ttx | frickler: exactly | 14:45 |
| ttx | so technically it is already "released" | 14:46 |
| ttx | not sure how to undo it | 14:46 |
| ttx | I guess if we just remove the file it won;t get listed anymore | 14:46 |
| frickler | yes, let's not do that, and just not place it into 2025.2 deliverables | 14:46 |
| ttx | and it will just have a weird dangling branch | 14:47 |
| ttx | I'm fine either way i think | 14:48 |
| elodilles | me too, actually, it would have been better to finalize this before m-2, though :( | 14:48 |
| ttx | 1- we remove the deliverable file and forget about it, it's just a repo with a stable/2025.1 branch that won't go anywhere | 14:49 |
| ttx | 2- we release it and it's there but nobody does anything with it | 14:49 |
| elodilles | (and we will remember to delete that branch when we get there o:)) | 14:49 |
| fungi | i think the critical thing will be for them to remember that they can retire the repo at 2024.2-eom/eol (which should coincide with 2024.1 since 2024.2 is not-slurp?) | 14:49 |
| ttx | (1) might be slightly more consistent with the governance decision | 14:50 |
| ttx | no strong opinion, leaning towards (1) | 14:50 |
| frickler | if we do 1), we should also eol 2025.1 right away | 14:50 |
| fungi | oh, thats a good idea | 14:50 |
| elodilles | same: leaning towards (1) if that is possible | 14:51 |
| ttx | can we eol if we delete the deliverable file? | 14:51 |
| elodilles | we can do the EOL as well if we want, but it's not super urgent in my opinion | 14:51 |
| frickler | we need to add an eol tag to the file first I think | 14:51 |
| elodilles | or do it manually | 14:52 |
| frickler | if we don't do that, the branch will need to be deleted manually, too | 14:52 |
| elodilles | yepp | 14:52 |
| frickler | but whatever path, let's do it now and not rediscover this in 5 years like some funny stable/newton branches | 14:53 |
| ttx | frickler: can you take the action of pushing two patches (the eol addition then the deletion of the file)? | 14:53 |
| frickler | hmm, ok | 14:54 |
| ttx | frickler: thanks! I'll add it to next week list | 14:54 |
| elodilles | thanks frickler ! | 14:54 |
| frickler | I'm just a bit surprised that rpittau actually +1d https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943144 despite the deprecation | 14:55 |
| ttx | might have missed it | 14:55 |
| ttx | Alright, anything else to cover? | 14:55 |
| ttx | calling once... | 14:56 |
| elodilles | nothing else | 14:56 |
| ttx | calling twice... | 14:56 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Fri Mar 7 14:56:59 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2025/releaseteam.2025-03-07-14.00.html | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2025/releaseteam.2025-03-07-14.00.txt | 14:56 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/releaseteam/2025/releaseteam.2025-03-07-14.00.log.html | 14:56 |
| ttx | Thanks everyone! | 14:57 |
| elodilles | thanks ttx o/ | 14:57 |
| kacperrh[m] | thanks ttx. | 14:57 |
| elodilles | ttx: the command gave this list to me: https://paste.opendev.org/show/bFJl2mtTjGTaJuQYCoSh/ | 14:57 |
| ttx | elodilles: yeah... but those are just unreleased | 14:58 |
| ttx | (or were released since jnauary but wrongly listed here) | 14:59 |
| ttx | I checked each, and none fall in the "released but not recently refreshed" case | 14:59 |
| elodilles | but i think that is the goal: we want to have everything released that is merged | 15:00 |
| ttx | (the command just lists "not recently refreshed", and it's wrong at it) | 15:00 |
| elodilles | but maybe i misunderstood something o:) | 15:00 |
| ttx | No, this task is about catching those who have done an early Epoxy release but have not refreshed it recently | 15:00 |
| ttx | The ones that have not done any release are caught in a previuos task (I sent that email to swift and ironic already) | 15:01 |
| ttx | so they know they have to do a release | 15:01 |
| ttx | the email says "The following deliverables have done a $series release, but it was not refreshed in the last two months:" | 15:02 |
| elodilles | sorry then i misunderstood it o:) | 15:02 |
| ttx | and those in your list have either (1) not done any Epoxy release, or (2) have refreshed since January | 15:03 |
| ttx | so all false positives | 15:03 |
| ttx | due to the command actually not taking into account whether a release was previoously made or not, and sucking at dates | 15:03 |
| *** whoami-rajat_ is now known as whoami-rajat | 15:04 | |
| elodilles | the only difference between the last week's command is this part '--unreleased-since YYYY-MM-DD' so in my understanding that is what we search for: deliverables that either do not released since <date>. but yes, the phrasing is maybe a bit misleading | 15:06 |
| opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/releases master: Add Neutron cycle highlights (Epoxy release) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943634 | 15:12 |
| opendevreview | Brian Haley proposed openstack/releases master: Add Neutron cycle highlights (Epoxy release) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943634 | 15:13 |
| opendevreview | Rodolfo Alonso proposed openstack/releases master: Add Neutron cycle highlights (Epoxy release) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943634 | 15:27 |
| opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/releases master: Nova 2025.1 Epoxy cycle highlights https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943801 | 15:48 |
| opendevreview | Carlos Eduardo proposed openstack/releases master: [manila] Add 2025.1 Epoxy cycle highlights https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/943654 | 18:09 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!