| *** dims_ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 00:35 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 00:36 | |
| *** dims_ has quit IRC | 02:21 | |
| *** eglynn has quit IRC | 07:33 | |
| *** eglynn has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 07:33 | |
| *** eglynn has quit IRC | 07:47 | |
| Kiall | ttx: excellent :) I see you tagged+uploaded to LP.. Thanks :) | 07:52 |
|---|---|---|
| * Kiall gets back to Kilo testing :) | 07:52 | |
| *** eglynn has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 08:05 | |
| *** eglynn has quit IRC | 08:16 | |
| *** eglynn has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 08:27 | |
| sdague | ttx: so, are we at the point of branching GR? | 10:14 |
| ttx | sdague: yes | 10:15 |
| ttx | Will do with Doug's peer-review in a couple hours. You can play along if you are free | 10:16 |
| ttx | Currenbtly brainstorming what we need to do at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw | 10:16 |
| *** zz_johnthetubagu is now known as johnthetubaguy | 11:07 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 11:08 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: good morning/afternoon | 12:18 |
| ttx | dhellmann: o/ | 12:18 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I dumped notes at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw | 12:19 |
| dhellmann | ttx: give me a minute to read that and eat my toast? | 12:19 |
| ttx | yep | 12:19 |
| dhellmann | ttx: do we have stable/kilo branches for projects yet, or are they still proposed/kilo? | 12:20 |
| ttx | they are proposed/kilo until release day, so that I own the ACLs | 12:20 |
| dhellmann | k | 12:20 |
| ttx | s/I/Release Managers/ | 12:20 |
| ttx | (of which you are a member) | 12:20 |
| ttx | but we pushed a change so that stable/kilo reqs sync to proposed/kilo if stable/kilo doesn't exist | 12:21 |
| dhellmann | ah! that was the missing piece | 12:21 |
| ttx | thx to fungi for that | 12:22 |
| dhellmann | ok, so are we creating stable/kilo or proposed/kilo branches for the clients, too? | 12:23 |
| dhellmann | that is, are you and I doing it this morning? | 12:23 |
| ttx | I think that's the simplest way to ensure they are done and properly done | 12:23 |
| dhellmann | ok | 12:24 |
| dhellmann | and I see there's a list of the current release numbers that we can use for that | 12:24 |
| ttx | yes, and a few question marks | 12:24 |
| dhellmann | I think probably nothing uses the other clients listed there? | 12:26 |
| ttx | Looks like step 1 is safe, I can do that while you process and crosscheck the lib list | 12:26 |
| dhellmann | marconiclient should be completely deprecated, right? | 12:26 |
| ttx | right, nothing in the integrated list (the things that actually use stable/kilo) uses the "other libs" afaict | 12:27 |
| dhellmann | k, I'm looking for the script I used to create the branches. I feel like it was rccut.sh but that seems to be creating proposed branches not stable | 12:27 |
| ttx | I may have missed libs between the oslo ones (already done) and the not-yet-done | 12:27 |
| dhellmann | ok, I'll check the project list | 12:28 |
| ttx | osprofiler is used | 12:28 |
| ttx | (cinder glance heat trove) | 12:28 |
| sdague | it would be good to push a fake change to the stable/kilo req once the branch is cut and make sure all the devstack-gate logic is still working for this | 12:28 |
| ttx | we can push a .gitreview update | 12:29 |
| dhellmann | sdague: all of the branches will need to have their .gitreview files updated to add the defaultbranch -- right | 12:29 |
| ttx | added to procedure | 12:29 |
| sdague | ttx: did you actually look at - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172435/ - or script -2 it? | 12:30 |
| ttx | I fast-copypasted it. FWIW we usually don't get through the hassle of updating that for propsoed/* and pass the branch to the git-review command. | 12:31 |
| ttx | I don't mind it being there though | 12:31 |
| ttx | chnaged to 0 | 12:32 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I'm not sure what to do with the heat-cfntools or heat-translator. Leave them for now? | 12:33 |
| ttx | they are not consumed as libs afaict | 12:33 |
| ttx | I'd leave them out for now. Theyt are released without stable curently | 12:33 |
| ttx | arh, typing too fast | 12:34 |
| dhellmann | ok -- we should no longer be releasing anything without a stable branch, but we can fix that when something breaks | 12:34 |
| dhellmann | did you talk to annegentle about openstackdocstheme? | 12:35 |
| ttx | no | 12:35 |
| dhellmann | that's probably safe to leave for now, I'll make a note of it | 12:36 |
| dhellmann | what about python-keystoneclient-federation and python-keystoneclient-kerberos | 12:38 |
| ttx | ly understanding is that those don't really exist as far as kilo is concerned | 12:38 |
| dhellmann | k | 12:38 |
| dhellmann | yeah, let's do zaqarclient | 12:39 |
| ttx | and osprofiler, I'd say | 12:39 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I fear the only way we can get libs to prperly bump .Y on a new cycle is to remove tagging rights from PTLs. | 12:40 |
| ttx | and have more "release managers" to approve them round the clock | 12:40 |
| dhellmann | ttx: we could also include a first liberty release in the work we do today | 12:41 |
| dhellmann | I agree on osprofiler, too | 12:41 |
| ttx | hmmm. | 12:41 |
| dhellmann | because we also have to update the minimums in master for liberty, right? | 12:43 |
| ttx | I guess we could (tag a first liberty thing). We just haven't asked the PTLs about it | 12:43 |
| dhellmann | I guess we don't *have* to | 12:43 |
| ttx | dhellmann: why ? | 12:43 |
| ttx | minimums are to signal broken versions | 12:43 |
| dhellmann | yeah, we can leave those until someone needs a feature in a newer version | 12:43 |
| ttx | osprofiler is stackforge, so I think we should lump it in "external libs" | 12:44 |
| dhellmann | ah, that's why I couldn't find it | 12:44 |
| dhellmann | is that part of the rally project? | 12:44 |
| ttx | hmm | 12:44 |
| ttx | checking | 12:45 |
| ttx | no | 12:45 |
| dhellmann | not according to the governance repo | 12:45 |
| ttx | we can always fix it later, but at this point I wouldn't reach out to stackforge stuff | 12:45 |
| dhellmann | agreed | 12:45 |
| ttx | since in theory it's not our territory | 12:45 |
| ttx | alright, sounds like a plan | 12:46 |
| dhellmann | ah, I updated my release-tools repo and found make_library_stable_branch.sh -- I knew I had a script for that :-) | 12:47 |
| ttx | At which point in the process should we create the libraries stable branches ? | 12:47 |
| * dhellmann thinks | 12:48 | |
| ttx | not sure that actually matters, so we could parallelize it | 12:48 |
| ttx | maybe 2bis | 12:49 |
| dhellmann | probably before we make changes to the caps, that way all of those go into the client libs as well as the projects | 12:49 |
| ttx | so between 2 and 3 in the proposed procedure ? | 12:49 |
| ttx | works for me | 12:49 |
| dhellmann | hrm, although we won't actually want to release new versions with requirements changes | 12:49 |
| dhellmann | I guess capping is ok, we're not raising the minimum | 12:50 |
| ttx | ack | 12:50 |
| dhellmann | yeah, between 2 and 3 | 12:50 |
| ttx | Actually I think it's better to do it between 3 and 4 | 12:50 |
| ttx | so that capping is in place once we create the branch | 12:50 |
| ttx | probably equivalent. | 12:51 |
| dhellmann | yeah, if we do it before 3 we get auto-updates of the caps in the client repos | 12:51 |
| dhellmann | if we wait until after, we have to trigger that some other way | 12:51 |
| ttx | added between 2 and 3 | 12:52 |
| ttx | it's the new 3 | 12:52 |
| ttx | dhellmann, sdague: Do you know of any other library update coming from left field ? (see bottom of etherpad for known issues) | 12:53 |
| ttx | I'm also a bit uncertain with step 8 and could use jogo's experience before doing it | 12:54 |
| ttx | but nothing that prevents us from doing the earlier steps | 12:54 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I'm not sure how that part works myself, jogo did that | 12:54 |
| dhellmann | I think gordc and I worked out the python-ceilometerclient issue yesterday | 12:55 |
| ttx | ok, we'll sync with him before doing that part | 12:55 |
| sdague | ttx: let me look | 12:55 |
| dhellmann | they're going to backport a couple of fixes once the branch is in place | 12:55 |
| sdague | yeh, I guess the cross check is if it's in projects.txt it should have a stable branch | 12:56 |
| dhellmann | wow, pasting into an etherpad is borked for me | 12:56 |
| sdague | ttx: so keystonemiddleware is going to need 4 releases right? | 12:57 |
| sdague | because it's got to have icehouse compat as well | 12:57 |
| ttx | sdague: didn't exist in icehouse time, so no, but otherwise yes | 12:57 |
| sdague | well, keystoneclient then | 12:57 |
| ttx | yes | 12:57 |
| sdague | 3 releases for keystone middleware | 12:57 |
| dhellmann | the middleware has a stable/juno branch already | 12:58 |
| dhellmann | sdague: do you mean "3 releases every time we fix something" or 3 releases today? | 12:58 |
| ttx | yes, security issues. | 12:58 |
| sdague | dhellmann: today | 12:58 |
| sdague | per comments at end | 12:58 |
| ttx | well, not necessarily today, but certainly asap | 12:58 |
| dhellmann | k | 12:59 |
| sdague | ttx: honestly, for the amount of this I can keep in my head, that all seems fine | 12:59 |
| ttx | sdague: I'll take that | 12:59 |
| ttx | thx | 12:59 |
| ttx | OK, let me start by creating openstack/requirements stable/kilo branch from master HEAD | 12:59 |
| dhellmann | ttx: do you want to double check that I didn't mess up my copy/paste in http://paste.openstack.org/show/203974/ | 12:59 |
| ttx | checking | 13:00 |
| ttx | dhellmann: sounds good. Any chance you could pastebin make_library_stable_branch.sh so that I check it ? | 13:01 |
| ttx | also are you OK with me creating openstack/requirements stable/kilo branch from master HEAD now ? | 13:02 |
| dhellmann | ttx: even better: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/release-tools/tree/make_library_stable_branch.sh | 13:02 |
| dhellmann | ttx: yep, we're ready for that | 13:02 |
| ttx | oh, that repo contains awesome stuff | 13:02 |
| dhellmann | I want to extend that script to create the .gitreview file change, too, but haven't done it yet | 13:02 |
| ttx | if that's the one you used for oslo it certainly was tested now | 13:02 |
| ttx | ok, creating | 13:03 |
| dhellmann | I could add that to the script for today, or we could do these by hand | 13:03 |
| ttx | let's do them by hand | 13:03 |
| dhellmann | k | 13:04 |
| ttx | ok, we have a stable/kilo | 13:04 |
| * ttx proposed .gitreview there | 13:04 | |
| ttx | proposes* | 13:04 |
| * dhellmann waits for it to appear | 13:06 | |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173815/ | 13:07 |
| dhellmann | shall I fast-approve that? | 13:07 |
| ttx | I'd say yes | 13:07 |
| dhellmann | done | 13:07 |
| ttx | OK, should we hold until that merges before creating stable branches on libs ? | 13:08 |
| * ttx prepares change to global-requirements to cap things | 13:08 | |
| dhellmann | I think we can go ahead with those, but we'll want to wait for that to land before applying the caps | 13:08 |
| dhellmann | shall I run the script to create the lib branches? | 13:08 |
| ttx | dhellmann: yes. I prepare the caps while you run that | 13:09 |
| dhellmann | k, running now | 13:09 |
| dhellmann | hrm, this script checks that there is a launchpad milestone with the version requested | 13:10 |
| dhellmann | how much do we actually care about that, since most are failing the check | 13:10 |
| sdague | it's also important to make sure it's testing the right things, so once some test results get back we should look at which branches were put on disk | 13:11 |
| ttx | Oh, what about python-openstacksdk | 13:11 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I think we can fast-create the missing milestones. Not sure it matters, but | 13:12 |
| dhellmann | I'll comment out that check for now | 13:12 |
| dhellmann | I'm not sure about the sdk | 13:12 |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 13:13 | |
| ttx | hmm stackforge too ? | 13:13 |
| ttx | lumping it with osprofiler | 13:14 |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 13:15 | |
| dhellmann | that one is official now, but it hasn't been renamed | 13:15 |
| dhellmann | it's not used anywhere, though | 13:15 |
| dhellmann | we can always come back and do it later | 13:15 |
| ttx | ah. hm | 13:15 |
| dhellmann | ok, my script finished and all of the branches in the libs are created | 13:18 |
| dhellmann | I'll start on .gitreview files now | 13:18 |
| ttx | should we create the milestones in LP ? | 13:20 |
| ttx | Proposed caps at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173842/ | 13:21 |
| dhellmann | ttx: it's up to you, we can make the milestones if it helps with tracking | 13:22 |
| ttx | depends if those were actually created properly before... | 13:22 |
| ttx | Give me the list of missing ones and I'll check | 13:22 |
| ttx | if it's most, don't bother, I'll check them all | 13:22 |
| dhellmann | barbicanclient, keystoneclient, neutronclient, novaclient, and keystonemiddleware *did* have them | 13:23 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 13:24 | |
| ttx | ok, need to check that they are on the rigth series too | 13:24 |
| ttx | since they weren't using them until now, but need them for proposing backports in LP | 13:24 |
| ttx | i'll just straighten them all | 13:24 |
| * ttx just likes to play with LP | 13:25 | |
| ttx | that will take some time to straighten out | 13:27 |
| dhellmann | ok, I'm submitting the .gitreview updates now | 13:29 |
| dhellmann | hmm, glancestore and django_openstack_auth had issues | 13:30 |
| ttx | what kind of issues | 13:32 |
| dhellmann | my local repo wasn't updated so the commit went into the wrong branch | 13:33 |
| dhellmann | easy to fix | 13:33 |
| dhellmann | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/owner:doug-hellmann+branch:stable/kilo+is:open,n,z | 13:33 |
| dhellmann | hrm, my script included an extra blank line. sorta ugly, but it shouldn't hurt anything | 13:34 |
| ttx | should we approve those now ? Or wait until the main one is in ? | 13:37 |
| ttx | I guess now is as fine as ever | 13:37 |
| dhellmann | yeah, let's go ahead and approve them | 13:38 |
| dhellmann | and then we should wait for them to merge, probably, before approving the requirements caps | 13:38 |
| dhellmann | I'll double-check that change now | 13:38 |
| ttx | I'll approve the gitreview bumps | 13:38 |
| dhellmann | the caps look good, and I gave it +2 for now so I remember that I've reviewed it :-) | 13:41 |
| ttx | arh, I don't have barbicanclient +2/aprv | 13:42 |
| ttx | damn inclubated projects | 13:42 |
| ttx | err... same for ceilometerclient | 13:42 |
| ttx | looks like some ACLs need some love | 13:42 |
| ttx | will approve what I can | 13:42 |
| ttx | Looks liek that is none of them | 13:43 |
| ttx | dhellmann: we need to add the stable-maint-core ACLto the libs | 13:44 |
| ttx | I can continue fixing LP if you work on that | 13:45 |
| ttx | Or I can switch context, just let me know | 13:45 |
| dhellmann | I can probably do the ceilometer client one, let me see | 13:46 |
| dhellmann | ttx: is adding stable-maint-core acls something I can do through editing the acl files, or do I have to do that in gerrit directly? | 13:47 |
| ttx | you have to propose a project-config change | 13:48 |
| ttx | ideally we would do them all in one go | 13:48 |
| dhellmann | k | 13:48 |
| ttx | basically copy the main project acl | 13:48 |
| ttx | as far as stable/* is concerned | 13:48 |
| ttx | so that the local $PROJECT-stable-maint gets rights | 13:48 |
| dhellmann | ttx: sort of like what I was doing for oslo libs? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173075/3/gerrit/acls/openstack/debtcollector.config,cm | 13:51 |
| ttx | sort of. see bottom of etherpad for example for nova | 13:53 |
| ttx | Just checking that stable-maint-core rights would be inherited | 13:53 |
| ttx | ohn taht would because stable-maint-core is in every stable-maint group | 13:54 |
| dhellmann | yeah, the form I'm using is what we're doing with oslo now, where we add the global stable maint team and let the primary core team also have those rights (by not using exclusiveGroupPermissions) | 13:56 |
| ttx | dhellmann: so what I pasted at the bottom the etherpad, changing "nova" for $PROJECT | 13:56 |
| dhellmann | ok | 13:56 |
| dhellmann | I'm not finding an acl file for glance_store | 13:56 |
| ttx | probably uses glance.config | 13:56 |
| ttx | directly | 13:56 |
| ttx | I think acl files is mapped in the gerrit projects file | 13:57 |
| dhellmann | ah | 13:57 |
| dhellmann | python-glanceclient of all things | 13:57 |
| dhellmann | ttx: https://review.openstack.org/173892 | 14:05 |
| ttx | adjusting those milestones is full of unfun. Shouldn't have started | 14:06 |
| dhellmann | :-/ | 14:06 |
| ttx | dhellmann: reviewed. There is one typo and an open question for projects that don't have stable teams yet | 14:11 |
| ttx | Those currently use their core teams to do stable IIRC | 14:11 |
| ttx | yeah, so zaqar-core instead of zaqar-stable-maint | 14:11 |
| ttx | barbican doesn't even do stable branches :) | 14:12 |
| ttx | designate uses designate-milestone | 14:12 |
| ttx | bit of a mess | 14:13 |
| ttx | ironic uses ironic-milestone | 14:13 |
| ttx | and openstackclient doesn't do stable yet, could reuse python-openstackclient-milestone for the time being | 14:14 |
| dhellmann | ttx: fungi also suggested removing the "proposed" sections | 14:14 |
| ttx | that can't hurt | 14:14 |
| dhellmann | ok, I'll do that too | 14:14 |
| dhellmann | for the teams that don't exist, do we want to create them or do we want to reuse an existing team? | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | for example, barbican-stable-maint | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | we don't want to add stable-maint-core to barbican-core | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | I could extend the rights to stable-maint-core like I did in oslo, though | 14:16 |
| dhellmann | or we could make a new team | 14:16 |
| ttx | I think we should reuse the existing ones for the moment | 14:20 |
| dhellmann | ok | 14:20 |
| ttx | i.E. if they do stable with their -milestoen team, so be it | 14:20 |
| ttx | we shoudl have that discussion of moving them to stable-maint system at some point, but not today | 14:20 |
| dhellmann | some of these projects don't even have release teams | 14:20 |
| dhellmann | I can handle that the way we did in oslo, though, so no problem | 14:21 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 14:38 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 14:42 | |
| ttx | almost done with LP | 14:43 |
| ttx | dhellmann: ok, all set (phew). The benefit is that it points liberty to the X.Y+1.0 version | 14:49 |
| ttx | will also simplify a lot the backporting targeting work | 14:50 |
| ttx | ok, where are we standing now | 14:51 |
| ttx | dhellmann: stable/kilo req .gitreview bump still in gate | 14:53 |
| ttx | other gitreview bumps pending https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173892/ | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | ttx: https://review.openstack.org/173919 is a change to add those .gitreview changes as the branches are made, for next time | 14:53 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173842/ could use sdague eagle eyes as an additional +2 (do not approve just yet) | 14:54 |
| ttx | ack | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | no rush on that script change, obviously | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | and if you have a less ugly way to do the newline handling, let me know | 14:54 |
| ttx | Looks like we are blocked at this point. We can propare the external lib caps, but let's wait for jogo to do that | 14:56 |
| ttx | I guess we could still encourage the backports to be proposed to the libs (step 5) | 14:57 |
| ttx | although ideally .gitreview bumps would merge first | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | yeah, they could submit patches on top of those .gitreview patches, but that's just going to use up more test nodes that could be running the jobs we're waiting for now | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | ttx: we could remove the requirements caps in master, too, right? | 15:00 |
| ttx | dhellmann: you mean the Oslo ones ? | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | ttx: all of it, but yeah | 15:01 |
| ttx | yes, we should propose that before we declare the freeze over and the gates open | 15:02 |
| ttx | Adding to procedure | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | I'll work on the patch | 15:02 |
| ttx | This is longer and harder than expected, sorry to ruin your whole morning | 15:03 |
| ttx | but I kinda expected that which is why I proactively seeked help :) | 15:03 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I set today aside when you asked me to help. The only other thing I need to do today is call Delta to fix my flight to the summit (they rescheduled so I won't have time to make my connection) | 15:04 |
| dhellmann | ttx: https://review.openstack.org/173924 | 15:07 |
| ttx | dhellmann: lgtm | 15:11 |
| ttx | dhellmann: should we hold on that approval ? Or should we get that in and then remove the -2s from requirements master branch that we pushed during freeze ? | 15:12 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 15:19 | |
| *** david-lyle_ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 15:19 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: it's probably safe to go ahead and approve it, since we do have the stable branches now | 15:20 |
| ttx | dhellmann: yeah. we should fine another +2 | 15:21 |
| ttx | find* | 15:21 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I pinged sdague in -infra | 15:25 |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 15:32 | |
| ttx | Looks like some syncs got triggered already | 15:34 |
| sdague | dhellmann: sorry, I'm in the middle of sorting out neutron for grenade | 15:35 |
| sdague | what do you need me on | 15:35 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173827/1 | 15:35 |
| ttx | sdague: https://review.openstack.org/173924 +2/APRV | 15:35 |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 15:36 | |
| sdague | ttx: yeh, so testing isn't working correctly - http://logs.openstack.org/15/173815/1/check/check-tempest-dsvm-full/0636154/logs/devstack-gate-setup-workspace-new.txt.gz | 15:43 |
| ttx | uh | 15:44 |
| sdague | it's testing trove master | 15:45 |
| sdague | this was my concern around the proposed/* branches | 15:45 |
| sdague | I think requirements also needs to be proposed/kilo | 15:45 |
| ttx | hm, that always fell back in previous releases though | 15:45 |
| sdague | otherwise the test infrastructure doesn't work | 15:45 |
| sdague | no, I don't think it did | 15:45 |
| sdague | I think we just lucked out | 15:45 |
| *** jogo has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 15:45 | |
| ttx | or did we use proposed/juno last cycle ? | 15:46 |
| sdague | honestly, I don't know | 15:46 |
| sdague | this is the reason I hound you about 'proposed' :) | 15:46 |
| ttx | hrm | 15:46 |
| sdague | it's a piece of our infrastructure that's so infrequently used, no one knows if it's going to work | 15:46 |
| sdague | anyway, we should probably take this to -infra and get opinions there | 15:47 |
| ttx | yeah, though that channel is already busy | 15:47 |
| ttx | jogo: thanks for joining. Looks like things just got on fire though | 15:50 |
| ttx | jogo: fyi we are following https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw | 15:51 |
| ttx | For step 8 we were planning to enlist your help to manipulate the cap script | 15:51 |
| ttx | But then we should probably get the stable/kilo testing fixed first | 15:51 |
| * jogo looks | 15:52 | |
| jogo | so how did https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173834/1 happen | 15:54 |
| jogo | ttx: so want me to run cap.py on stable/kilo g-r? | 15:55 |
| dhellmann | jogo: yeah, none of us are sure how to do that | 15:55 |
| ttx | jogo: we have to do that at some point right ? | 15:56 |
| ttx | so better do it before we cut the RC2s so that we can sync the corresponding stuff in the release ? | 15:56 |
| jogo | dhellmann: hopefully the help message is useful http://paste.openstack.org/show/204005 | 15:56 |
| jogo | ttx: yes we have to do it at some point. Not sure if the point is before RC2s or after though | 15:57 |
| dhellmann | jogo: well, I meant, what else do I need on my system first, etc. -- can I just run it on any box with the code checked out? | 15:57 |
| jogo | dhellmann: yes | 15:57 |
| dhellmann | k | 15:57 |
| jogo | you just need a copy of a pip-freeze | 15:57 |
| jogo | from a working gate run | 15:57 |
| dhellmann | ah | 15:57 |
| jogo | dhellmann: the script just pulls caps from pip-freeze output | 15:57 |
| ttx | jogo: I guess the question is... shoud we include that capped file in the release, or just have it in the stable branch post-release | 15:58 |
| dhellmann | oh, I thought it built a thing | 15:58 |
| jogo | dhellmann: I would prefer you run the script this time instead of me, so more people know how to use it | 15:58 |
| jogo | dhellmann: no, the next step is to push the patch up and see if it passes the tests. because it may not the first time | 15:58 |
| dhellmann | jogo: ok, where do I get the input you described? I guess we need a successful run first | 15:58 |
| jogo | in which case you may have to tweak the pins | 15:58 |
| jogo | dhellmann: correct, I usually take the gate logs from a job | 15:59 |
| jogo | ttx: not sure which makes the most sense, doing it post release means we don't have to respin RC2s for everything | 15:59 |
| dhellmann | jogo: the whole log, or cutting out the freeze stuff at the end? | 16:00 |
| * dhellmann should read cap.py | 16:00 | |
| jogo | dhellmann: see Iaf48bb069fdd7a19d614ce44b86abd9977c5f0c0 | 16:00 |
| ttx | jogo: we already pushed the caps for the openstack libs, so that will appear in rc2s | 16:00 |
| jogo | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147451/ in particular | 16:00 |
| jogo | ttx: I am less sure about the answer in light of the requirements.txt vs install_requires discussion | 16:01 |
| jogo | but either way works for me | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | jogo: ah, ok | 16:01 |
| ttx | maybe we can defer the general lib capping to after release then. Less is more | 16:02 |
| ttx | no strong opinion on it | 16:02 |
| jogo | dhellmann: I tried to make sure this was repeatable based on the commit message etc. | 16:02 |
| dhellmann | jogo: ok, I think I see what to do now, thanks for those pointers. I'll need to wait for some job running against stable/kilo to finish, and it sounds like sdague is saying at least some of those are looking at the wrong branches | 16:04 |
| ttx | yes, I propose we freeze the whole thing until we get that part fixed | 16:04 |
| ttx | dhellmann: still unsure when we want to do the external lib capping though | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | ttx: yeah, let's wait on that | 16:05 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I take it you support the "cap all in RC2" idea ? | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | I would also be OK with capping now and adjusting if we need to for RC2. Is there a strong reason to wait? | 16:06 |
| * dhellmann re-reads scrollback | 16:06 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: when you say "include that capped file in the release", do you mean the global-requirements.txt? | 16:07 |
| dhellmann | if we think we can get the caps in place before we cut rc2, that does seem ideal | 16:08 |
| jogo | dhellmann: let me know if you have any further questions | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | jogo: ok, thanks. it looks like it'll be a while before we're ready to take that step | 16:11 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I mean include the external library capping in the requirements.txt files shipped in the reelase | 16:12 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok. I think that's a good goal. | 16:13 |
| ttx | ok. That means we'll need them before we cut RC2s then, as described in the plan | 16:13 |
| dhellmann | ++ | 16:13 |
| ttx | but let's solve that proposed/stable thing first | 16:13 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 17:09 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 17:11 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 17:11 | |
| *** eglynn has quit IRC | 17:13 | |
| Kiall | ttx: about? We found a few release critical issues in testing today :( Can we self-create a rc2 milestone or, so I leave that to you? | 17:36 |
| ttx | Kiall: I can create it. Although it would probably be good to let the RC1 be tested a bit more, unless the issue prevents testing or eats data | 17:41 |
| ttx | In the mean time add them to the kilo-rc-potential tag and get them fixed in master | 17:43 |
| Kiall | Sounds good | 17:44 |
| ttx | we can open a RC2 tomoroow or Friday | 17:44 |
| Kiall | perfect | 17:45 |
| *** johnthetubaguy is now known as zz_johnthetubagu | 17:48 | |
| ttx | sdague: weird that that test run reports SUCCESS on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173815/ | 17:49 |
| * ttx will be back in ~ one hour | 17:49 | |
| sdague | ttx: it's not weird | 17:56 |
| sdague | there is no reason that test should fail, it was told to do a thing, and it could do it | 17:57 |
| sdague | but it doesn't mean it was the right test | 17:57 |
| *** openstackstatus has quit IRC | 17:58 | |
| *** openstackstatus has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 18:00 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +v openstackstatus | 18:00 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Gerrit has stopped emitting events so Zuul is not alerted to changes. We will restart Gerrit shortly to correct the problem. | 18:04 | |
| *** ChanServ changes topic to "Gerrit has stopped emitting events so Zuul is not alerted to changes. We will restart Gerrit shortly to correct the problem." | 18:04 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:10 | |
| *** ChanServ changes topic to "OpenStack Release Managers office - Where weekly 1:1 sync points between release manager and PTLs happen - Logged at http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-relmgr-office/" | 18:26 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Gerrit has been restarted. New patches, approvals, and rechecks between 17:30 and 18:20 UTC may have been missed by Zuul and will need rechecks or new approvals added. | 18:26 | |
| ttx | I'll lump the plan into https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw | 19:15 |
| dhellmann | heat only has 2 patches, so we could start there and experiment to see how that goes before committing to do all of the projects | 19:15 |
| *** fungi has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 19:16 | |
| fungi | my, what a lovely office you have | 19:16 |
| ttx | fungi: right? We follow https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw | 19:16 |
| dhellmann | I've never seen leather upholstery in an irc channel before | 19:16 |
| ttx | it was here when I inherited it though | 19:17 |
| *** AJaeger_ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 19:17 | |
| fungi | corduroy upholstery? this must have been here since the 70s | 19:17 |
| fungi | just ftr, do we have a list of projects which will need a refs/heads/stable/kilo acl for milestone/rm folk? | 19:18 |
| ttx | Do we still need https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173892/ | 19:18 |
| * anteaya admires the lava lamp | 19:19 | |
| ttx | yes we do | 19:19 |
| fungi | ttx: i believe so, yes | 19:19 |
| fungi | those people are just doing stable business as usual | 19:19 |
| ttx | I assigned people to steps 3-5 | 19:20 |
| ttx | I'll create the stable branches for all proposed/kilo | 19:20 |
| sdague | so, sorry, was at a pediatric appoitment earlier and missed what the resolution is | 19:21 |
| ttx | all hail stable/kilo | 19:21 |
| sdague | we're doing stable branches early? | 19:21 |
| fungi | sdague: proposed is dead, long live stable | 19:21 |
| sdague | ok, great | 19:21 |
| sdague | that simplifies a bunch of things | 19:21 |
| ttx | yes, it's more the future-proofind that convinced me | 19:21 |
| ttx | g | 19:21 |
| fungi | release management/milestone peeps will have explicit acl-granted control over the stable/kilo branch until release day, then we can delete that section and the stable/* section will cover it for normal stable people | 19:22 |
| ttx | ack, at least until we talk to see if we can skip that step | 19:22 |
| fungi | righty-o | 19:22 |
| sdague | ttx: so somewhere in here is also devstack-gate logic adds, grenade & devstack branching | 19:22 |
| ttx | ok, creating branches, starting with heat | 19:22 |
| sdague | which might be at the end of your current list | 19:22 |
| ttx | I thought you wanted to do it postrelease | 19:23 |
| fungi | working on acls. where's the list of projects that need this, or should i just dig it out of the integrated release list on governance.o.o? | 19:23 |
| ttx | this is more pre-RC2 and those will start appearing tomorrow | 19:23 |
| sdague | so, if we have actual stable branches, we probably want to test upgrade to them | 19:23 |
| ttx | sdague: well, maybe yes, that would close the hole we have during proposed | 19:24 |
| sdague | we never did proposed/ on grenade or devstack before | 19:24 |
| sdague | yeh | 19:24 |
| ttx | but if we don't do that this time aroundno big deal | 19:24 |
| fungi | yep, i had started to look at what grenade logic additions would be needed to devstack-gate for kilo branches, but got sidetracked when it was pointed out that we had deeper problems | 19:24 |
| sdague | it's probably a few days until we're ready for that anyway, I *definitely* want to get the rest of this grenade refactor done before the branch, which is why I've been kind of heads down on it | 19:24 |
| ttx | heat done : https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/projects/openstack/heat,branches | 19:25 |
| ttx | dhellmann: repropose at will | 19:25 |
| * ttx does others | 19:25 | |
| ttx | sdague: ++ | 19:25 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok, I'm scripting it out | 19:25 |
| sdague | ttx: ok, are there any jobs you want me to inspect, or reviews you need out of me atm. Otherwise I'll walk away for a bit, and check back later for reviews you need me on. | 19:26 |
| ttx | this day will forver be known as the Propogeddon | 19:26 |
| fungi | these are the ones which need the acl addition? http://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/integrated-release.html#application-to-current-projects | 19:26 |
| sdague | ttx: will there be t-shirts? | 19:27 |
| fungi | propostable/kilo | 19:27 |
| ttx | fungi: + zaqar designate barbican manila | 19:27 |
| fungi | ttx: thanks! | 19:27 |
| ttx | oh I rememebr now | 19:29 |
| ttx | I also didn't want stable so that we wouldn't produce "stable.tar.gz" | 19:29 |
| ttx | anyway | 19:29 |
| ttx | ignore me | 19:29 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 19:30 | |
| fungi | okay, so the only projects from that list which currently lack a refs/heads/proposed/* section are barbican and manila | 19:31 |
| ttx | I'll also already clean up propsoed branches that don't have any review posted yet | 19:32 |
| dhellmann | fungi: is there some way to tell git review that I want it to submit something to a branch other than what is in the .gitreview file? I'm not seeing the cli option | 19:32 |
| ttx | fungi: hmm manila should have it | 19:33 |
| fungi | dhellmann: it's the first positional argument to the command line | 19:33 |
| dhellmann | ah, I was looking for a flag | 19:33 |
| fungi | ttx: it's missing from the acl, doesn't mean there is no branch | 19:33 |
| ttx | oh ok | 19:33 |
| dhellmann | so here's 1 patch generated with my re-submit script: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174042/ | 19:34 |
| dhellmann | I would appreciate a quick review to make sure it looks ok before I call that one done and submit all of the others | 19:34 |
| ttx | fungi, dhellmann: OK for removing propsoed/kilo where there is no patch proposed yet ? | 19:34 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I'm on it | 19:34 |
| fungi | yep, sounds safe to me | 19:34 |
| dhellmann | ttx: yeah, if we don't need the branch let's remove it | 19:35 |
| ttx | dhellmann: so.. you lose the changeID | 19:35 |
| ttx | is that on purpose ? | 19:35 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ia563f4130c31baa4dcee3be3786ea3c49b6bad98,n,z shows master and porposed | 19:35 |
| ttx | we usually keep the same for tracking | 19:35 |
| fungi | right, probably need to make sure you copy the change-id line from the commit message | 19:36 |
| dhellmann | ttx: it wouldn't let me resubmit the patch with the same id, but maybe if I'm explicitly setting the branch it will? | 19:36 |
| dhellmann | let me try again | 19:36 |
| ttx | it should yes | 19:36 |
| fungi | yeah, that would only object if proposing to the same branch it's already abandoned on | 19:36 |
| dhellmann | it's thinking hard... | 19:37 |
| dhellmann | fails because there are no new changes | 19:37 |
| *** jeblair has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 19:37 | |
| ttx | weird | 19:37 |
| fungi | dhellmann: in this case i think you can just abandon the incorrect one first. new change-id means new change anyway | 19:38 |
| dhellmann | fungi: I've abandoned the original one, but should submitting a new patch have un-abandoned it? | 19:38 |
| dhellmann | (with the same change-id) | 19:38 |
| fungi | dhellmann: it'll be a different change-id than the one you originally proposed to that branch, yeah? | 19:39 |
| fungi | since this time you're copying the change-id from the one which was abandoned on the old branch | 19:39 |
| dhellmann | fungi: I re-ran the script and got a fresh copy of the original commit and tried to resubmit it | 19:39 |
| dhellmann | I should show you my script... | 19:39 |
| fungi | that might help | 19:39 |
| dhellmann | http://paste.openstack.org/show/204031/ | 19:40 |
| dhellmann | that function is called: rebase_one heat https://review.openstack.org/173706 | 19:40 |
| dhellmann | where that url is the original changeset | 19:40 |
| fungi | ideally you want Change-Id: Ia563f4130c31baa4dcee3be3786ea3c49b6bad98 in the commit message and the change to be proposed to stable/kilo | 19:40 |
| ttx | ok, cleaned up the proposed/kilo branches that had no change yet | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | right, the version I ran before had "git review -i stable/kilo" to change the change-id because resubmitting the same change to the different branch failed | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | so I removed the -i and tried again, and it still failed | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | I ran it a couple of times, and it only works with the -i | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | unless I change the commit message some other way, I suppose | 19:41 |
| dhellmann | and, fwiw, I'm not making any changes to the commit by hand | 19:42 |
| fungi | ohh... yes you probably need a subtle tweak somewhere to make sure the commit sha is not identical | 19:42 |
| fungi | gerrit wants commit sha to be unique between changes and between patchsets | 19:42 |
| dhellmann | k | 19:42 |
| jeblair | or just force a new commit | 19:42 |
| fungi | righth, commit --amend | 19:42 |
| jeblair | i think the timestamps are in the commit sha | 19:43 |
| fungi | they are, right. so is the committer for that matter. both will be updated if you --amend | 19:43 |
| dhellmann | ah, and since the rebase isn't actually having to make any changes that's not updating the hash | 19:44 |
| dhellmann | ok, so I'll add an amend step | 19:44 |
| dhellmann | I don't suppose there's a way to do that without having to then also exit vi | 19:44 |
| fungi | you can set EDITOR=/bin/true | 19:45 |
| fungi | pretty sure | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | ok, I'll try that | 19:45 |
| ttx | jeblair: could we get extra eyes on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173892/ ? | 19:45 |
| dhellmann | fungi: ok, it looks like that worked: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ia563f4130c31baa4dcee3be3786ea3c49b6bad98,n,z | 19:46 |
| fungi | perfect | 19:47 |
| ttx | Now I need to re -2 them | 19:47 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I'm going to test one more, then submit all of the rest | 19:47 |
| ttx | dhellmann: looks good | 19:47 |
| dhellmann | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/I7b3edf6bf7ea0efaf96398a83dad9ebe61caaa23,n,z | 19:48 |
| ttx | lgtm | 19:48 |
| dhellmann | ok, here goes... | 19:48 |
| AJaeger_ | dhellmann: git commit --amend --no-edit | 19:49 |
| dhellmann | AJaeger_: aha | 19:49 |
| fungi | oh, that sounds a lot more correct than my hack ;) | 19:49 |
| dhellmann | setting editor to true is also working | 19:49 |
| ttx | sdague: it's a bit uncelar to me why https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173924/ (which is a master change) needs to wait until the branches are right | 19:50 |
| ttx | that should test master -> master | 19:50 |
| jeblair | ttx: what's the membership of foo-stable-maint going to be? | 19:50 |
| dhellmann | hmm, git review seems stuck on this keystone patch | 19:51 |
| jeblair | ttx: stable-maint + ptl? | 19:51 |
| ttx | jeblair: it already exists, no ? | 19:51 |
| ttx | It's specific devs in each projects that sign up to understand and apply stable branch policy. It's been around for the last 5 months | 19:51 |
| ttx | + stable-maint-core | 19:52 |
| jeblair | ttx: what acl references it? | 19:52 |
| ttx | the corresponding main project | 19:52 |
| dhellmann | ah, some of these keystone commits are in series :-/ | 19:52 |
| dhellmann | I might have to clean those up by hand | 19:52 |
| ttx | so.. keystone for pycadf python-keystoneclient and keystonemiddleware. | 19:52 |
| fungi | looked like pycadf got their own group there | 19:53 |
| jeblair | ttx: got it. i picked pycadf-stable-maint and noticed it didn't exist | 19:53 |
| jeblair | fungi: ^ yeah | 19:53 |
| fungi | but i'm not looking at the change just now so might be misremembering | 19:53 |
| ttx | oh, the exception that confirms the rule | 19:53 |
| jeblair | so should pycadf use keystone-stable-maint? | 19:53 |
| fungi | so that one might be a bug | 19:53 |
| ttx | jeblair: I'd say yes unless they have a specific stable team | 19:53 |
| ttx | the goal is not to create any new group | 19:54 |
| ttx | so you may have spotted an issue | 19:54 |
| mestery | ttx: Have a release question for you when you have a moment | 19:54 |
| jeblair | k. lemme finish reviewing before we address it. | 19:54 |
| ttx | mestery: you may wait forever | 19:54 |
| mestery | ttx: :( | 19:54 |
| ttx | mestery: you should ask withou waiting for me to have a moment | 19:55 |
| mestery | ttx: Ack | 19:55 |
| mestery | ttx: So, we found an issue with the *aaS repos. We need to pin their neutron requirements in requirements.txt and tox.ini, see here for example: https://github.com/openstack/neutron-vpnaas/blob/master/tox.ini#L13 | 19:55 |
| mestery | ttx: I'm thinking we need to pin them to @stable/kilo, thoughts? | 19:55 |
| mestery | ttx: Pin to a branch I mean | 19:55 |
| mestery | ttx: My question is, if I'm right, would I send those patches to proposed/kilo in each repo? | 19:56 |
| ttx | mestery: stable sounds good -- especially with the change we are doing now | 19:56 |
| ttx | we are getting rid of proposed/kilo and switch to stable/kilo directly | 19:56 |
| mestery | ttx: Ack, so I'll just propose a straight-up change to proposed/kilo then? | 19:56 |
| mestery | ttx: OK, so I'll propose them directly to stable/kilo then | 19:56 |
| mestery | ttx: Thanks! | 19:56 |
| ttx | mestery: yes and we'll include them in RC2 | 19:56 |
| mestery | ttx: Ack, thanks! | 19:57 |
| ttx | I'll -2 them until RC2 window is open | 19:57 |
| mestery | ttx: Cool | 19:57 |
| mestery | ttx: Well, I'll -2 them,. | 19:57 |
| mestery | ttx: One other thing: I sent some cherry-picks to proposed/kilo, shoudl I redo those to stable/kilo? | 19:57 |
| mestery | Sorry for the confusion :( | 19:57 |
| jeblair | ttx: okay, so pycadf is the only possible error like that i saw, but there are also cases where we're using the -milestone group instead of -stable-maint (but in those cases -stable-maint does not exist yet) | 19:57 |
| ttx | mestery: dhellmann is reproposing them for you | 19:57 |
| * mestery sends dhellmann a ^5 | 19:57 | |
| mestery | thanks ttx and dhellmann! | 19:58 |
| jeblair | ttx: also, there's at least one that's just stable-maint-core... not sure about that | 19:58 |
| ttx | jeblair: yes, because that is what they used there (mostly incubated projects that are not under stable-maint regime yet) | 19:58 |
| ttx | + stable-maint-core when nothing else ever existed | 19:58 |
| jeblair | ttx: should we go ahead and create new groups to make it consistent? or do you want to keep it that way? | 19:58 |
| ttx | I need to talk to the affected projects to see what they want to do | 19:58 |
| jeblair | ttx: since it's just groups, it would probably be easy to add stable-maint-core later | 19:58 |
| ttx | so I'd rather fall back to stable-maint-core in the mean time | 19:59 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I'm going to simply abandon the requirements updates from https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:proposed/kilo,n,z | 19:59 |
| ttx | It's fie to keep it that way for the time being | 19:59 |
| ttx | fine* | 19:59 |
| ttx | dhellmann: ok | 19:59 |
| dhellmann | we'll get new patches to replace those when we update the global list in that branch | 19:59 |
| ttx | agreed | 19:59 |
| ttx | aaah | 20:01 |
| ttx | dims: please do not approve stable/kilko stuff | 20:01 |
| ttx | see what I mean with strict ACLs | 20:01 |
| ttx | the probelm is.. people think they can do things with stable/* | 20:01 |
| fungi | yep. i'm almost done with the acl change proposal. just linting it now | 20:01 |
| ttx | I hate to be right | 20:01 |
| ttx | sigh | 20:01 |
| ttx | ยง/me -2s | 20:02 |
| dims | ttx: you mean the stuff from the bot? | 20:02 |
| ttx | I mean anything | 20:02 |
| ttx | in stable/kilo | 20:02 |
| mestery | yikes | 20:03 |
| dims | ttx: ack. i thought that was posted by the bot by design! apologies | 20:04 |
| AJaeger_ | dims, can you remove your +A? | 20:05 |
| ttx | So, another drawback of using stable/kilo.... it becomes harder to see what things I need to -2 since libs can land stuff there without a RC window opened | 20:05 |
| dims | AJaeger_: yes, of course | 20:06 |
| ttx | using proposed/kilo was neatly separating it out | 20:06 |
| ttx | jeblair: You'll hear me rumble forever | 20:06 |
| fungi | https://review.openstack.org/174074 is the stable/kilo temporary acl addition | 20:07 |
| fungi | it's a union of the refs/heads/proposed/* acl from all-projects (which we can now drop) and the refs/heads/proposed/* additions which some of those projects had in place already | 20:08 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I'm updating a few by hand that were in series. Please -2 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174075/ | 20:09 |
| dims | ttx, fungi: do we need stop the job from proposing the requirements update? | 20:10 |
| ttx | dims: I /think/ it will fail now that I -2ed it | 20:10 |
| fungi | dims: i don't think so, no. we just need to stop anyone from approving any changes to stable/kilo branches until 174074 lands and has a few minutes to get applied | 20:11 |
| fungi | at least for projects whose acls are changing in that patch | 20:11 |
| dims | ttx, fungi: thanks | 20:11 |
| dhellmann | ttx: another: https://review.openstack.org/174078 | 20:14 |
| dhellmann | ttx: last one: https://review.openstack.org/174079 | 20:14 |
| ttx | fungi: acl change looks good | 20:14 |
| dhellmann | ttx: all patches have been resubmitted | 20:15 |
| ttx | arh the 10pm network lag hits again | 20:17 |
| ttx | dhellmann: ok, abandoning remaining proposed/kilo branches | 20:17 |
| dhellmann | fungi: I've updated the acl patch based on jeblair's feedback: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173892/ | 20:18 |
| fungi | thanks, revisiting | 20:19 |
| dhellmann | I guess we have several acl patches in play now, don't we | 20:19 |
| fungi | dhellmann: got it. so going with stable-maint-core rather than keystone-stable-maint there | 20:19 |
| ttx | OK I think I got rid of all of them | 20:20 |
| fungi | dhellmann: yes, though if we're lucky, they're all touching a non-overlapping fileset | 20:20 |
| ttx | jeblair: please rereview https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173892/ | 20:20 |
| ttx | and approve at will | 20:20 |
| dhellmann | fungi: for pycadf? yeah, using the non-exclusive trick you showed me | 20:21 |
| dhellmann | I guess I could have used pycadf-release there | 20:21 |
| dhellmann | except for that team the release group is the folks who push tags, so that's not really the same thing | 20:21 |
| ttx | yeah, we can adjust as needed after | 20:22 |
| fungi | yeah, makes sense. this isn't set in stone. acls are maleable | 20:22 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 20:22 |
| ttx | fungi: ok, we are now blocked by the two ACL changes | 20:23 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173892/ | 20:23 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174074/ | 20:23 |
| ttx | then we should be able to proceed | 20:24 |
| ttx | sdague: any specific change we should recheck to verify that everythign is now squared ? | 20:25 |
| ttx | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173842/ maybe | 20:25 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I rechecked https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173842 to give us fresh results. It would be good to look at a patch against a regular project, too | 20:27 |
| ttx | yeah | 20:28 |
| ttx | well those things you just proposed should do taht | 20:28 |
| dhellmann | yeah, so the first one that finishes... | 20:28 |
| ttx | dhellmann: so I have a very early train tomorrow so I won't stay up very late | 20:28 |
| ttx | let's see what more you could push today | 20:28 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I'll baby sit these for a while tonight. I'm headed into the city myself tomorrow, so I'll check in first thing and then when I get there | 20:29 |
| ttx | if you can get 6. and 7.2 approved, you can probably do... | 20:29 |
| *** AJaeger_ has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| ttx | 7.3 | 20:29 |
| ttx | 8.1 I am not even sure we need to wait to approve | 20:30 |
| ttx | and even 9. | 20:30 |
| ttx | If you can get that all pushed I can pick up tomorrow and announce depfreeze end | 20:30 |
| dhellmann | ok | 20:31 |
| ttx | do you se any reason for us to wait on 8.1 ? https://review.openstack.org/173924 | 20:31 |
| ttx | I'll recheck it | 20:31 |
| dhellmann | no, that shouldn't affect us, unless we're just being extra cautious | 20:32 |
| dhellmann | sdague tends to see issues with these cross-branch things that I don't, though, and I don't think it will hurt us to wait on that one a bit | 20:32 |
| ttx | he removed his -2 so I suspect if it passes tests it's golden | 20:32 |
| dhellmann | k | 20:32 |
| ttx | I'll +1 all the stable/kilo .gitreview bumps so taht you can +2/APPRV them once the ACL is fixed | 20:33 |
| ttx | without feeling too much like you're self-approving :) | 20:33 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok | 20:34 |
| ttx | ok, all +1ed and rechecked the -1s to get fresher results | 20:40 |
| ttx | dhellmann: anything else you need from me ? | 20:40 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I think we're good. Get some sleep, and safe travels tomorrow. | 20:43 |
| ttx | dhellmann: ok, I'll connect from the train. Cheers and thanks again! | 20:44 |
| sdague | dhellmann: yeh, I -2ed that after the test issues I saw | 20:46 |
| dhellmann | sdague: ok, I hadn't seen that the tests failed (busy on other changes) so I wasn't sure what was up | 20:47 |
| sdague | well, not fail | 20:47 |
| sdague | but the fact that the other requirements thing wasn't doing the right thing | 20:48 |
| dhellmann | oh, yeah, that | 20:48 |
| dhellmann | ttx: when you have time, could you take a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173075/ and give your +1/-1? no rush, but it'll make stable management for oslo simpler | 21:16 |
| dhellmann | now that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174074/ is approved and we're safe, I'm going to grab dinner. I'll look in on the other blocking changes from https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/the-big-thaw first thing tomorrow | 21:19 |
| *** dims_ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 21:46 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| *** mestery_ has joined #openstack-relmgr-office | 23:33 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!