| fungi | mtreinish: they do not need to be a contributor to the project to which they're appointed ptl, no | 00:00 |
|---|---|---|
| fungi | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141128-elections-process-for-leaderless-programs.html | 00:02 |
| fungi | that's our most recent official proclamation on the subject | 00:02 |
| mtreinish | interesting, feels like there is potential for a fun triple ptl by tc appointment situation :) | 00:06 |
| * mtreinish wonders if tonyb would like more hats | 00:07 | |
| fungi | i suspect there's no more room on his hat tree | 00:09 |
| fungi | or in the headwear warehouse he uses for overflow | 00:10 |
| fungi | headwearhouse? | 00:10 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 00:10 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 00:14 | |
| * tonyb[m] can always wear more hats .. but I suspect the only team I'm qualified to lead wouldn't want me as a PTL | 00:25 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 00:27 | |
| fungi | "i'll shut down this team over the course of the cycle" doesn't necessarily need much qualification! ;) | 00:28 |
| tonyb[m] | fungi: How'd you know? | 00:29 |
| diablo_rojo | So much for your super secret plan tonyb[m] | 00:29 |
| tonyb[m] | LOL | 00:29 |
| fungi | i figure you've got your work cut out for you as reviewstats core reviewer now anyway | 00:29 |
| diablo_rojo | Being the only one. | 00:30 |
| tonyb[m] | fungi: LOL that will take lots of time it's true | 00:30 |
| tonyb[m] | smcginnis: will be core soon ;P | 00:30 |
| clarkb | tonyb[m]: way ahead of you | 00:31 |
| tonyb[m] | clarkb: \o/ | 00:32 |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 00:40 | |
| smcginnis | heh | 00:42 |
| *** whoami-rajat has joined #openstack-tc | 00:51 | |
| fungi | and now it's office hour once more | 01:01 |
| mnaser | indeed :) | 01:01 |
| mnaser | so we need to figure out powervmstackers, telemetry and zaqar officially | 01:03 |
| mnaser | i think zaqar is important for tripleo ? | 01:03 |
| mnaser | looks like it was still getting changes as of recent -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/639983/ | 01:04 |
| mnaser | "By default the TripleO workflows will send messages to a Zaqar queue with the name tripleo, the workflows all accept a queue_name parameter which allows a user defined queue name to be used. It can be useful to use" | 01:05 |
| mnaser | https://docs.openstack.org/tripleo-docs/latest/install/mistral-api/mistral-api.html | 01:05 |
| mnaser | so perhaps it would be interesting to hear what EmilienM or mwhahaha might have a say on zaqar | 01:05 |
| mwhahaha | Yeah we still use it | 01:06 |
| mnaser | mwhahaha: ack, there's no elected ptl right now, so if there's any interest from someone to maintain it there, it might be a good time to bring it up | 01:06 |
| mwhahaha | Don't really have folks who work on it but we'll be fixing things as needed for the forseable future | 01:06 |
| mnaser | mwhahaha: thanks, that's good to note and keep in mind, so it will be maintained *but* there isn't necessarily a new ptl suggested | 01:07 |
| mnaser | regarding powervm stackers -- i still see some activity https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/nova-powervm | 01:08 |
| mnaser | i've asked efried who has a bunch of contributions to the repo (and is pretty active) to join here to perhaps help us out in figuring that oiut | 01:09 |
| mnaser | telemetry... \ | 01:09 |
| * mnaser shrugs | 01:09 | |
| mnaser | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/ceilometer+is:merged | 01:11 |
| gmann | o/ | 01:11 |
| mnaser | i think it's probably about time to wind things down there | 01:11 |
| mnaser | hiya gmann , ready to break the world tomorrow? :-PP | 01:11 |
| gmann | mnaser: :). i am trying not to break more. figuring out the failed projects and notify them before we merge the base patches - https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:legacy-job-bionic+(status:open+OR+status:merged) | 01:12 |
| *** marst has joined #openstack-tc | 01:14 | |
| gmann | zaqar seems to have few active contributors. may be we wait till APAC TZ if anyone step up- https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/zaqar | 01:15 |
| fungi | mnaser: yeah, public knowledge that efried is no longer at ibm and won't be particularly involved in powervmstackers | 01:16 |
| fungi | there is a brief e-mail from edmondsw on the openstack-discuss ml explaining the plan from their end | 01:17 |
| fungi | it sounds like they have a prospective new ptl for it, but that individual may not actually be a contributor yet so wouldn't have qualified to run for election if so (but could still be appointed by the tc if we choose) | 01:18 |
| fungi | http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-March/003748.html | 01:19 |
| fungi | though it does point out the risks with a single-vendor-focused team | 01:20 |
| fungi | one reorg can completely gut the current set of contributors and reassign a whole new set of people to take it over | 01:21 |
| fungi | which is also what happened (twice?) with trove in recent history | 01:21 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 01:23 | |
| fungi | gmann: should we be trying to sync up our approvals of the default nodeset and legacy nodeset changes so they take effect at roughly the same time? | 01:25 |
| fungi | teams are guaranteed to still need to make some individual job configuration changes once we do | 01:26 |
| mnaser | fungi: sorry, i missed that thread but i see it now | 01:27 |
| gmann | fungi: sure, i will be ready probably by tomorrow EOD. I am preparing the list of fail projects and then give them tomorrow day time for fix if they can otherwise make jobs n-v. and then during evening we merge the base patch. | 01:27 |
| fungi | even just with my test on nova master, i saw that they define a nova-tox-functional-py35 in their repo which is parented directly to openstack-tox rather than something like openstack-tox-py35 or openstack-tox-functional-py35 so will be trying (and failing) to find the python3.5 executable unless they reparent the job or set an explicit nodeset of ubuntu-xenial in it | 01:27 |
| fungi | and if there's one for nova, i'm sure there are plenty more for other projects | 01:28 |
| gmann | i see | 01:29 |
| gmann | fungi: in that case how you are planning? job fail and ask them to fix or wait for project to fix 35 jobs first before base nodeset move to bionic | 01:30 |
| fungi | did my best to outline the coming gotchas for teams in http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-March/003746.html | 01:31 |
| fungi | let them fix jobs when they see them start failing | 01:31 |
| fungi | there's no way to find and patch them all ahead of time | 01:31 |
| gmann | in legacy integrated jobs, it is different. any derived jobs using xenail does not cause issue we just move them to bionic | 01:32 |
| gmann | fungi: yeah it is hard. i did for all projects with test patch and asked project to look into failing one. now I am 1. listing fail project and ping them on IRC and ML 2. converting testing patch to actual required change for example remove overridden nodeset from derived jobs. | 01:33 |
| *** zbr has quit IRC | 01:34 | |
| fungi | yeah, the problem is that right now a lot of openstack projects have fairly specialized jobs which parent directly to the zuul-jobs repository (and the zuul team isn't going to accept openstack-specific branch cruft in their standard library), and the only other layer of indirection we have right now is our base job in project-config which is a global default for the entire tenant and so also used by | 01:34 |
| fungi | other projects besides openstack | 01:34 |
| fungi | so there is no good place to add a set of branch filters which will get inherited by all openstack projects | 01:35 |
| fungi | but luckily, the fixes are all very simple and straightforward | 01:36 |
| gmann | yeah | 01:36 |
| fungi | projects just need to be aware and apply them | 01:36 |
| gmann | i am worried both migration tasks might confuse most of the projects ? as majority of the project members have not read the ML and details. | 01:37 |
| fungi | we have a mailing list to communicate these changes for a reason | 01:39 |
| fungi | if they're surprised, it's all the more incentive to pay closer attention to the mailing list in the future, i guess? | 01:39 |
| gmann | yeah even both ML thread tagged ptl in sub | 01:40 |
| gmann | so at least ptl should notice :) | 01:41 |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 01:44 | |
| mnaser | a late 'candidacy' | 01:55 |
| mnaser | (for zaqar) | 01:55 |
| gmann | \o/ | 01:58 |
| fungi | better late than never! at least makes our decision for who to appoint a bit more straightforward | 02:06 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:22 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:23 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 02:24 | |
| *** ricolin_ has joined #openstack-tc | 02:31 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:53 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:53 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 03:26 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:27 | |
| *** marst has quit IRC | 03:37 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 04:13 | |
| *** ricolin_ has quit IRC | 04:13 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 05:22 | |
| gmann | only 7 projects failing on legacy integration jobs on bionic, rest all good - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-March/003761.html | 05:26 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:40 | |
| *** Luzi has joined #openstack-tc | 06:48 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 06:52 | |
| *** tonyb is now known as tonyb_gone | 07:20 | |
| *** tonyb_gone is now known as tonyb | 07:21 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:31 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:51 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 08:36 | |
| ttx | Re: potential extra SIGs, I18n (special interest in translating) is one, Winstackers (special interest in OpenStack on Windows) is another, PowerVMStackers too (special interest in PowerVM support) | 08:49 |
| ttx | The other remaining transverse teams (Docs, Release Management, QA, Requirements...) are not a "special interest" but more integral to the production of good software. | 08:50 |
| ttx | ricolin: ^ | 08:51 |
| ttx | My original plan for Meta SIG was to engage with the Train PTL for these teams, see if they would support a transition. | 08:53 |
| ttx | Happy to help doing that, but also happy to defer to the new Meta SIG co-chairs :) | 08:54 |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 08:58 | |
| *** zbr has joined #openstack-tc | 09:06 | |
| ricolin | ttx those are great target indeed, if you have time to help we can pick some for each and double the speed | 09:07 |
| ricolin | ttx can you share your plan/though on how this transition works with Release Management team? | 09:10 |
| ricolin | s/though/thought/ :) | 09:10 |
| ttx | ricolin: no I meant that I think for Release Management, QA, Requirements, those are not SIG material -- releasing the software we produce is not a special interest, it's an integral part of upstream software production | 09:11 |
| ttx | Compare to winstackers, which should really regroup dev/ops interested in having good OpenStack-on-Windows support | 09:13 |
| ricolin | ttx oh! okay, I fully agree with that | 09:13 |
| ttx | rather than be a one-person team) | 09:13 |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:14 | |
| ttx | So Winstackers is an obvious target, PowerVMStackers too... I18n is a bit in a grey area, but its upstream+downstream nature (anyone can translate) makes it a great fit for a SIG | 09:14 |
| ricolin | How's the status for PowerVMStackers right now | 09:15 |
| * ricolin think ttx must have better tracking info than himself | 09:16 | |
| ttx | They don't have a PTL proposed for Train, so it might be the good time to consider either dropping or continuing as a SIG | 09:17 |
| ttx | like start a discussion: if nobody is interested then the team should be abandoned. If people are interested they probably should be a SIG. | 09:17 |
| ricolin | ttx what's the process when a SIG is not getting anyone's favor | 09:18 |
| ttx | ricolin: if it's an established group, it can be set as dormant. If it does not exist and nobody wants it, I'd just remove the team/SIG | 09:19 |
| ricolin | do you like to start that ML or you wish me to do it? | 09:25 |
| ricolin | I18N team, is a interesting one. IMO it actually can play a big role here, if we can help them get more attention from devs, ops, and user groups | 09:32 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 09:32 | |
| ricolin | which to become a SIG might be a way for it | 09:33 |
| frickler | why is there no campaigning period anymore? I seem to remember there was one earlier. or was that only for TC elections and not PTLs? | 09:54 |
| * frickler would have liked to see melwitt and efried exchange some arguments before voting | 09:54 | |
| cdent | frickler: as I recall it's only ever been for tc. but yes, some discussion between eric and mel would be informative | 09:59 |
| cdent | nothing is stopping you from posting a message and asking some questions | 09:59 |
| cdent | I suspect _many_ people would like to see that | 09:59 |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 10:11 | |
| frickler | cdent: yes, I was wondering whether that might be unfair to people who already voted, but I'll see if I can put something up | 10:13 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 11:09 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 11:17 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 11:26 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 11:36 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 11:51 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 12:32 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 12:47 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 13:05 | |
| persia | On PowerVMStackers: I am rejectig https://review.openstack.org/#/c/643003/ , but it may be useful input for TC appointment. | 13:10 |
| persia | (or for starting the SIG transition discussion) | 13:10 |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 13:22 | |
| dhellmann | mnaser : if we're going to close down telemetry, I would like to do it | 13:26 |
| *** marst has joined #openstack-tc | 13:28 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 13:31 | |
| ttx | ricolin: We should wait a bit -- I'd like to let the election conclude before assaulting new PTLs :) | 13:31 |
| *** efried has joined #openstack-tc | 13:39 | |
| efried | mnaser: Sorry I missed your message last night. Is there anything I can help with at this point/ | 13:39 |
| efried | ? | 13:39 |
| mnaser | efried: i think a few people mentioned the context regarding powervm that i might have missed before reaching out, so i think we should be okay now | 13:39 |
| EmilienM | didn't we have a maintenance mode? | 13:40 |
| EmilienM | did we trash that? | 13:40 |
| EmilienM | I remember Trove was in that situation a while ago | 13:40 |
| mnaser | it still exists and it's leaderless right now, so either need someone appointed or drop it | 13:40 |
| EmilienM | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/status_maintenance-mode.html | 13:40 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 13:41 | |
| efried | mnaser: edmondsw is your best point person for now. I'm happy to help if you need me. | 13:41 |
| mnaser | efried: wonderful, thank you | 13:41 |
| EmilienM | honestly, I think removing Telemetry isn't a good option | 13:41 |
| mnaser | EmilienM: the project has not seen any changes at all, sadl | 13:41 |
| mnaser | sadly | 13:41 |
| EmilienM | I've been working on customer cases where Telemetry was involved (e.g. Auto Scaling) | 13:41 |
| EmilienM | mnaser: and? things just work | 13:41 |
| EmilienM | we should ask what Julien and Mehdi think about that | 13:42 |
| mnaser | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/ceilometer+is:open show a lack of reviews | 13:42 |
| mnaser | i think julien mentioned that he wouldn't run again | 13:43 |
| mnaser | this was the last run | 13:43 |
| *** jd_ has joined #openstack-tc | 13:43 | |
| jd_ | hello | 13:43 |
| EmilienM | jaosorior: hey Julien | 13:43 |
| EmilienM | damn | 13:43 |
| EmilienM | jd_: ^ sorry | 13:43 |
| mnaser | oh he's been summoned | 13:43 |
| EmilienM | yes I called him | 13:43 |
| EmilienM | let's have a convo here | 13:43 |
| *** marst has quit IRC | 13:44 | |
| EmilienM | I just wanted to confirm you were ok with Telemetry being retired from OpenStack | 13:44 |
| mnaser | i don't think we've taken a decision yet fwiw | 13:44 |
| EmilienM | mnaser: right but let's involve the right people in that decision making | 13:44 |
| mnaser | but it's probably one of the options that would be significantly impacting to the ecosystem, i agree with EmilienM. | 13:44 |
| EmilienM | and not just supposing things | 13:44 |
| mnaser | i think speaking to cloudkitty folks as well that depend on it | 13:45 |
| jd_ | I've no clue on what are the pros/cons of removing it neither why anybody wants it to be removed | 13:46 |
| jd_ | so it's hard for me to comment | 13:46 |
| mnaser | i think it provides a lot of value for users, however, i think it's not been super maintained/fixed merged either | 13:46 |
| dtantsur | I suspect given our current place in the hype curve, we're going to see more of such cases. And we may need a well-thought response (I don't have any, just suggesting a barely useful overall opinion :) | 13:47 |
| jd_ | what's the problem that anyone is trying to solve here? | 13:47 |
| cdent | EmilienM: I tried to make the case to my employer, and you should probably do the same, that since they use telemetry they need to provide some people to work on it | 13:49 |
| cdent | but that fell on deaf ears | 13:49 |
| cdent | in which case the right thing to do is to let it die | 13:49 |
| cdent | because the lack of attention will not get fixed otherwise | 13:49 |
| cdent | we cannot take on responsibilities for things that people making money of it are unwilling to support | 13:49 |
| EmilienM | my problem here is that retiring seems premature to me | 13:51 |
| EmilienM | Maintenance mode seems more accurate: | 13:51 |
| EmilienM | project activity is very low, no PTL | 13:51 |
| EmilienM | but damn the code still works | 13:52 |
| EmilienM | we actually have CI testing in puppetopenstack & tripleo, with real scenarios | 13:52 |
| EmilienM | what i'm doing here is to defend use cases that people might have out there | 13:52 |
| mnaser | i totally agree that there is use cases and we're going to really have a huge impact on the ecosystem if we do take that path | 13:53 |
| *** cdent_ has joined #openstack-tc | 13:54 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 13:54 | |
| *** cdent_ is now known as cdent | 13:54 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:00 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 14:00 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:01 | |
| mnaser | EmilienM: i think the concern here is that the project can't be in maintenance-mode because it's ptl-less | 14:01 |
| *** marst has joined #openstack-tc | 14:01 | |
| mnaser | we'd need a ptl and then bring it to maintenance mode | 14:01 |
| mnaser | tc-members: is anyone able to take ownership and follow up with all these leaderless projects, coming up with some sort of report? | 14:04 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has quit IRC | 14:09 | |
| fungi | i can, however also being an election official it might be weird since both hats may need to have a conversation with each other | 14:09 |
| ttx | EmilienM: Even for a stable and working component there is still a minimal level of activity required to be included in an openstack release -- someone looking out for submitted bugs or vulnerabilities, and covering for keeping it running. | 14:09 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 14:10 | |
| ttx | If nobody raises their hand when we ask for a team lead, it's a good indication that there is no team anymore | 14:11 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has joined #openstack-tc | 14:11 | |
| ttx | Now most of the time it's a communications issue -- someone missed the memo. In other cases it's that election falls into the middle of a shift in the team | 14:12 |
| persia | mnaser: As an uncompromised election official, I can send a report on projects that did not have a PTL nominated, if you need one. Current status is that Zaqar and PowerVM Stackers have late nominations, and Telemetry has no nomination. | 14:12 |
| persia | What sort of report do you want, and sent where, with which tags? | 14:12 |
| * jd_ still don't know what the problem is | 14:12 | |
| EmilienM | ttx: fair enough - I guess I just wanted to make sure we talked with the folks who maintained Telemetry (I know dhellmann did but there are some others, I wanted to check with them.) | 14:12 |
| ttx | But in some corner cases it's just that there is no team anymore. And if we can't find anyone interested in continuing supporting a given piece of software, it's fair to ask the question whether we should continue to list it as something we attach the openstack name to | 14:13 |
| fungi | a quick summary on where things stand, though: zaqar has a volunteer who would have been a confirmable candidate if they had just submitted it ~5 hours sooner; powervmstackers has a volunteer who would not have qualified as a ptl candidate due to not previously being a contributor to that team (but due to an employer reorg this was unavoidable for their team, and said volunteer is an existing openstack | 14:13 |
| fungi | contributor at least); telemetry has no volunteer yet, under discussion how to proceed | 14:13 |
| ttx | EmilienM: of course. I agree talks of removal are premature. | 14:14 |
| mnaser | persia, fungi: okay, so for the most part, we're mostly concerned about telemetry | 14:15 |
| persia | mnaser: Yes. | 14:15 |
| fungi | jd_: i think the problem, fundamentally, is that if there are no volunteers to look after the project then it is likely to rot (we're about to make changes to our default testing platform today even, is there someone who will adjust ceilometer or its tests if necessary?); we can simply wait for it to go from unmaintained to unmaintainable, but having transition plans in advance of that can make the | 14:16 |
| fungi | situation a little less jarring | 14:16 |
| mnaser | jd_: for context, there is no nominated PTL for Telemetry, we need to decide what to do with the project at this stage. | 14:16 |
| jd_ | mnaser: why? | 14:16 |
| ttx | Also it's a problem releasing software if there is nobody signed up to process bugs that may arise using it | 14:16 |
| mnaser | jd_: because every openstack team needs a PTL, if it doesn't have one, then we'd probably pull it out and it would no longer be something that's "part of openstack" | 14:17 |
| mnaser | (and that's the extreme case, unless we get someone to volunteer to look after it) | 14:17 |
| jd_ | fungi: makes sense, though kicking it out does not solve the root of the problem, it just ignores it — but I understand the rationale :) | 14:17 |
| fungi | i get that the bureaucracy is probably overshadowing the reasoning. i think i've stated the actual concerns fairly clearly above | 14:17 |
| jd_ | mnaser: then change openstack so it does not need a PTL for every project :) | 14:17 |
| mnaser | jd_: that's actually a *very* reasonable thing to bring up | 14:17 |
| persia | Note that the PTL doesn7t necessary have to commit to fixing everything, but just responding to things. We've had past PTLs that coordinated clean shutdown, or just reported lack-of-people-to-do-the-work status for a cycle and reached out to find an interested development team. | 14:18 |
| fungi | the lack of a ptl isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem | 14:18 |
| mnaser | fungi: i agree with you, but i find at times there might be projects where there's people that are actively contributing, but just don't want to take up that role | 14:18 |
| mnaser | playing 'manager' isn't as fun as pushing code :P | 14:19 |
| ttx | mnaser: I'd say it's not too much to require, for each project, at least one person to care enough about it to sign up to maintain it in working shape for the next 6 months | 14:19 |
| persia | I think the lack of PTL *is* a problem. We rely on PTLs to be a point of contact for things. For sessile projects, the PTL workload is not very large. | 14:19 |
| fungi | we can certainly decide openstack doesn't need ptls any longer, but it does still depend on people fixing specific pieces of software when it becomes necessary | 14:19 |
| mnaser | i think PTL might be a loaded term that scares people off | 14:19 |
| ttx | mnaser: sure. But for smaller teams or components under maintenance, it's not that much | 14:20 |
| * dtantsur recalls having a "ironic doesn't really need PTLs" discussion some 4 years ago | 14:20 | |
| ttx | and if that maintenance is still too much and nobody can do it... | 14:20 |
| cmurphy | it doesn't sound like "there's people that are actively contributing, but just don't want to take up that role" is a case that applies to telemetry atm | 14:20 |
| ttx | dtantsur: but ironic still needs at least one person to care about it | 14:20 |
| fungi | the current concern is that if nobody cares enough about ceilometer or other telemetry deliverables to be the point of contact for their continued maintenance, then there's nobody who cares enough about them to fix them when we cease to be able to test, or install them together with the rest of openstack any longer | 14:20 |
| jd_ | fungi: can the repositories/project be removed from the official OpenStack label and that's enough? | 14:21 |
| dtantsur | ttx: right, right. I'm just not the biggest believer in the PTL role (even less of a one after I was a PTL myself) | 14:21 |
| fungi | jd_: if the project is useful on its own outside the context of other openstack projects then that may solve at least part of the problem. if it's not usable without the rest of openstack though, then there's not much point in leaving it unretired and perpetually broken | 14:22 |
| mnaser | let's drop the t from ptl and make it pl = project liason :p | 14:22 |
| dtantsur | I rather believe in having a release manager, a bunch of liaisons + voting power of the core team | 14:22 |
| persia | mnaser: Projects Team Liaison? | 14:22 |
| ttx | jd_: sure, that's what "removed" means. The project would still have repos and be able to continue using gerrit and all. It just would stop being listed as an active project team, and listed under releases.openstack.org for future releases | 14:22 |
| jd_ | sounds good enough to me | 14:22 |
| mnaser | i think jd_ brings a very valid point. there's a lot of projects that can function without a 'ptl', but needing a 'primary point of contact' .. we seem to stress that a ptl has to lead/direct the project, not necessarily be a point of contact | 14:23 |
| jd_ | ttx: how do you release if you don't use openstack-releases repo then? | 14:23 |
| mnaser | jd_: you can make git tags manually | 14:23 |
| fungi | push git tags | 14:23 |
| ttx | jd_: you would push tags | 14:23 |
| jd_ | ok | 14:23 |
| ttx | jd_: we'd restore the ACLs letting you do it directly | 14:23 |
| jd_ | fair enough | 14:23 |
| persia | Personally, I think asking the PTL to direct a project is actively harmful. Developers develop the stuff they want to develop for their own reasons (e.g. what they are paid to develop). They have no real incentive to wait for the PTL to direct them to do things. | 14:23 |
| dtantsur | git tag -s x.y.z && git push gerrit x.y.z | 14:24 |
| fungi | the openstack-releases repo is just a mechanism for allowing a specified group of people review the context of those tags and approve or reject them before they get pushed | 14:24 |
| ttx | it's really about a minimal commitment bar to be included in official openstrack | 14:24 |
| persia | Whereas I do think it is useful to have someone whois a contact for the project, and who can arbitrate between different agendas driven by the developers | 14:24 |
| mnaser | persia: yeah, i never meant to imply it in that way, but the term 'lead' in ptl seems to imply some sort of 'leadership' role | 14:24 |
| ttx | It's hard for example for the openstack release team to include a component if they don;t know who to talk to about it | 14:24 |
| cdent | I think we've got a real opportunity here to make the big corporate players notice a problem. Many of them include ceilometer in their projects. The issue here is not the lack of a PTL in telemetry. It's that there is no real team | 14:24 |
| fungi | persia: i think we have plenty of projects where the ptl doesn't "direct" the contributors in it | 14:25 |
| ttx | cdent: yes, that is what I'd like to try first | 14:25 |
| fungi | persia: and rather just facilitates their collaboration | 14:25 |
| cdent | s/their projects/their products/ | 14:25 |
| cdent | I've already railed at my employer and they didn't blink | 14:25 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has quit IRC | 14:25 | |
| mnaser | indeed. if this is an important $thing for your users, fund it | 14:25 |
| ttx | Basically, announce that the Telemetry bits are getting unmaintained so removed from future releases. If you care jump in | 14:25 |
| ricolin | mnaser, To allow having multiple project liason might be something to consider about. cores can share the load of maintain jobs. | 14:25 |
| persia | fungi: Yes. I think we should be careful about how we describe the expectations of PTLs to encourage those sorts of projects. | 14:25 |
| cdent | ttx yes | 14:26 |
| mnaser | ricolin: brings up an interesting point, why don't we just assume all cores are 'ptls' | 14:26 |
| jd_ | ttx: sounds good to me | 14:26 |
| ricolin | mnaser, exactly | 14:26 |
| mnaser | and when we need a point of contact, we can just use the ML with that tag / or email cores | 14:26 |
| fungi | persia: i mean, as infra ptl i didn't direct anything, i encouraged people to come to agreement on priorities as a team, document those, and self-organize around them | 14:26 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has joined #openstack-tc | 14:26 | |
| ttx | On our side we should probably make efforts so that this minimal commitment really is minimal. I feel like there is still too many communications required from a PTL | 14:27 |
| dtantsur | mnaser: that's what I meant under core voting essentially | 14:27 |
| persia | fungi: Yes. You were an excellent PTL. I hope that we set expectations for future PTLs for all teams so that they feel comfortable doing just that sort of thing, rather than feeling they have to do product management, or close direction of all developers, etc. | 14:27 |
| fungi | i was far too lazy to manage anyone ;) | 14:27 |
| persia | mnaser: I think the core/PTL difference is important. If the TC wishes to have someone who is committed to respond to queries, that ought be a person. When there are only teams, sometimes no individual member of the team feels responsible to respond to general queries. | 14:28 |
| dtantsur | persia: it's solved by liaisons though | 14:29 |
| dtantsur | the contact person doesn't have to have specific powers | 14:29 |
| persia | dtantsur: Sure, and my memory is that we created "liaisons" because PTLs were overwhelmed on large projects. I'm all in favour of changing the expansion of PTL to "Projects Team Liaison" | 14:29 |
| ttx | Maybe it's time to rename PTL to "Team representative" | 14:29 |
| dtantsur | "TC Liaison"? | 14:30 |
| dtantsur | oh, this term is already used, right? | 14:30 |
| ttx | It's not just TC | 14:30 |
| ttx | Teams should organize leadership internally however they want. The rest of the world needs to know who they can ping to talk to "the team" | 14:30 |
| dtantsur | well, the same person can be "TC Liaison", "Stable liaison", "Release manager", etc. Or it can be different people. | 14:30 |
| dtantsur | oh, this is what I have problems wtih | 14:30 |
| cdent | the flip side of the telemetry thing is that it really never has been fit for purpose, so perhaps retiring it is completely appropriate and the fact that it never got much contributor attention is because of that lack of fitness and we should recognize that. It's been on life support for years. Maybe it is time to pull the plug | 14:30 |
| persia | ttx: Not all the rest of the world: most are best served by tagged post to the mailing list. Just people with functional roles in the rest of openstack. | 14:31 |
| dtantsur | ttx: I certainly did not like everyone taking a shortcut and writing my personal emails instead of doing a tiny bit more homework | 14:31 |
| ttx | dtantsur: I'm not sure splitting the roles in a dozen micro-roles will make it less overwhelming when we look for one person to put their name on a stable project | 14:31 |
| dtantsur | ttx: maybe I'm spoiled by ironic :) but we've had Liaisons != PTL for some time | 14:32 |
| ttx | persia: sure, by rest of the world I mean, the foundation asking whether you want event space, the release team asking whether it's ok to release, the VMT asking for a fix to a vulnerability... | 14:32 |
| ttx | so we could totally split them so it's clearer what you sign up for, rather than be the default name | 14:33 |
| ttx | In the end you still want someone at the end of the line | 14:33 |
| dtantsur | ttx: we already have release and security liaisons for the last two | 14:33 |
| persia | ttx: OK. I think one of the reasons *not* to be PTL is when the rest of the world (being vendor product managers, press, random users, etc.) contact or name the PTL for things. | 14:33 |
| ttx | persia: fair point | 14:33 |
| dtantsur | persia: I think it contributes, yes. It's one of the reasons I personally don't want to run again. | 14:33 |
| persia | Especially poor behaviour is when a PTL happens to comment "I'm not sure we should do it this way" on a bug report, and some blogger explains to the world that Openstack rejects changes, or similar. | 14:34 |
| dtantsur | (Julia being awesome, of course, the main reason) | 14:34 |
| ttx | we've been trying to shield PTLs from press/marketing requests using stuff like cycle-highlights, but it only catches so much | 14:34 |
| ttx | dtantsur: indeed. So maybe adding TC liaison / Event liaison would be enough | 14:35 |
| cmurphy | this is an interesting discussion but not really related to the problem at hand, in fact all of the projects except one have a volunteer to act as PTL and the one that doesn't have a volunteer is in that state because it has no *team* not because no one on the team wanted to take on the scary leadership role | 14:35 |
| dtantsur | an Event liaison would also help in a (possible) situation when the PTL cannot attend most/any events (visa issues, budget, etc) | 14:35 |
| ttx | and only run an "leader" election if there is no consensus on the names to put | 14:35 |
| dtantsur | cmurphy: you're right, sorry for derailing. | 14:36 |
| ricolin | dtantsur, ttx to separate to multiple Liaison roles might still lead to single person responsible. Which might be extra loading for all. If we can just have an Liaison pools for each team and allow teams to decide who doing what. In that way, we got higher chances to have more people to ping to when we asking for some job to be done. | 14:37 |
| ttx | cmurphy: I think we should then say that the team is now empty, and if you care about Telemetry in OpenStack you should sign up, or we'll consider the team abandoned and remove the OpenStack label from the affected component in future releases | 14:38 |
| persia | cmurphy: I thought the no-team project was scheduled for removal from openstack: the past PTL seems comfortable with that model, representing the (lack of) team that currently (doesn't) maintain the project. | 14:38 |
| gmann | ttx: +1 | 14:38 |
| persia | ricolin: Havng more people to ping means more work for both the person pinging and for the recipients (as many won't be the right person). | 14:38 |
| cmurphy | ttx: persia sorry I guess I missed that that was decided | 14:38 |
| cdent | (ttx,cmurphy)++ | 14:38 |
| gmann | it is more no active team than just not PTL | 14:39 |
| persia | cmurphy: I don't think it was decided formally. I just thought I read consensus on that. (also I agree with ttx that calling for volunteers to be on the team is a good first step before delisting) | 14:39 |
| ttx | On one hand it's sad, but we all know that until we call hour of death, nobody will rise up. So it could be a good opportunity to show that yes, things you depend on can be removed, and you should really get involved BEFORE that happens rather than AFTER. | 14:40 |
| cdent | yes | 14:40 |
| ttx | What cdent calls heroic maintenance has made a lot of people too comfortable | 14:40 |
| gmann | FIWARE use it and depends on upstream version. I can bring this to them if they have few people can step up but again that is open source and might gave resource issue. but at least company using FIWARE (NEC is the one) can think of that. | 14:41 |
| ttx | A lot of people use it. And just assumed someone else can keep it running. | 14:42 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:42 |
| cdent | "assumed someone else" is the source of my recent rage-tweet | 14:43 |
| ttx | that magic pixie dust that open source is made of | 14:43 |
| cdent | magical open source bunnies | 14:44 |
| ricolin | to have some notice level, will be better than just move to the guillotine | 14:44 |
| persia | It's also a scheduling thing. Some orgs may be willing to fund some amount of telemetry development, but may not want to commit even 1/8 FTE for a full cycle. | 14:47 |
| ricolin | Maybe once we got no ptl for a team, we can move to having a multiple people share the same role's job. In this case it's to have cores to share PTL's job. | 14:47 |
| ttx | ricolin: it's already the case in most of the largest teams | 14:48 |
| fungi | to be fair, on the "it's not totally unmaintained" front, sileht did review and approve a recent security fix for ceilometer: https://review.openstack.org/629891 (as well as backports to queens and rocky which jd_ reviewed and approved) | 14:49 |
| fungi | turn-around from patch submission to approval was only a week | 14:50 |
| persia | which suggests that given that jd_ doesn't wish to be PTL, maybe sileht would be willing? | 14:51 |
| ricolin | ttx I mean we should tell Telemetry cores that they're responsible to take the PTL job together and make notice out to ask organizations to join before we kill the project. | 14:51 |
| fungi | ricolin: i don't believe we can tell telemetry cores we hold them responsible for anything in particular, only what actions we plan to take | 14:51 |
| ttx | ricolin: if they don't want the job I don't think we should tell them it's their responsibility to do it. | 14:51 |
| fungi | we can, for example, say that we're going to retire the repository or dissolve the team or whatever in the event that none of them wants to be the official point of contact for it | 14:52 |
| ricolin | fungi, ttx I think the only way to do it is to actually redefine the role as `core` if make sense to all. | 14:53 |
| fungi | it doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps i'm missing additional context | 14:53 |
| fungi | we need someone to contact who can act as a proxy for others on that team, for a variety of sorts of communications described earlier including release planning, event scheduling and so on | 14:54 |
| fungi | the technical committee is ultimately responsible for all software in openstack, but we delegate that responsibility (under our current governance model) to representative individuals who are elected to act as liaisons for the teams developing those components of openstack | 14:56 |
| ricolin | fungi, totally agree with you on that, I'm only talking to have such `share ptl job` role before we're considering to kill that project. | 14:57 |
| fungi | we do this, i believe, because while the tc is also an elected representative body across all openstack software, we can't effectively scale to represent the concerns of specific projects accurately, nor facilitate all communication between them and the rest of the community | 14:57 |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 14:59 | |
| fungi | ricolin: so instead of asking teams to elect one leader, we ask them to elect more than one? right now we allow them to self-organize in whatever way they desire, and delegate the determination of that organization to an individual that team elects. we don't say that they can't sub-delegate the position to additional team members | 15:00 |
| fungi | so by requiring them to provide multiple leaders, we would in effect be more proscriptive about how they can organize themselves and their work | 15:01 |
| fungi | we also then take on more work for the tc because we need to be able to figure out how to solve disputes when the multiple leaders of that team are unable to reach agreement on something | 15:03 |
| ricolin | fungi, maybe we should only ask to have `multiple leaders` thing for a team when they failed to provide single leader | 15:04 |
| fungi | so you think it's likely that a team which couldn't muster one ptl candidate will offer up more than one instead? | 15:05 |
| mugsie | I don't htink we should be going down the route of multiple leaders at all. we need to find a way to make people comfortable with being the PTL , by dropping the perseved amount of time it requires | 15:05 |
| mugsie | in a small, low volume team, PTL overhead is extremely minimal | 15:05 |
| ricolin | fungi, nope, my original mind is to force cores to share, but which seems have certain difficulty to do so:/ | 15:07 |
| persia | and if a team feels they can have multiple leaders, they can probably pick someone to be the lightning rod. The barrier to change PTL outside election is fairly low: basically current&prospective PTL tell the TC about the change. | 15:07 |
| persia | So PTL-of-the-month is a perfectly valid strategy for a team, if they want it. | 15:07 |
| mugsie | ricolin: we can't force anyone to do anything :) - if the cores are not willing to be PTL, it is unlikely making it even more complex (by making $x PTLs) is going to make them any happier doing it | 15:09 |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 15:10 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 15:11 | |
| persia | mugsie: Indeed, it may even make it less appealing to be core, especially if other folk believe one knows the code so will read one's +1 as an indicator that it is safe to proxy +3. | 15:12 |
| fungi | ricolin: mugsie: rather, the idea of what "force" means may be interpreted in different ways. you could see a mandate that a project is shuttered and the official status of a team dissolved when certain criteria go unmet as a form of force. we can't, however, prevent those individuals from continuing whatever work they want independent of our governance (perhaps in a fork of the original project) | 15:12 |
| mugsie | fungi: for sure, I would expect an option for the team would be "don't reitre the repos, just move them out of projects.yaml" | 15:13 |
| mugsie | or move to whatever $NEW_STACKFORGE is called | 15:14 |
| fungi | so the "force" we can apply is mainly to ensure a guaranteed negative outcome unless our expectations are met, but we can't guarantee a good outcome | 15:14 |
| ricolin | fungi, fair enough | 15:14 |
| fungi | it's basically all stick and no carrot | 15:14 |
| *** Luzi has quit IRC | 15:14 | |
| fungi | mugsie: i'm on the fence about allowing projects to continue development unofficially but under the same name. this has turned out poorly in several previous cases where we declared the project no longer part of openstack when its maintenance was waning, only to then see it abandoned completely with no owner soon thereafter and no recourse at that point to properly mark it retired as we no longer had | 15:17 |
| fungi | jurisdiction over it... so users kept finding the resulting attractive nuisance and expecting it to be maintained as it was part of openstack at one point in the past | 15:17 |
| * cdent aspires to be an attractive nuisance | 15:17 | |
| fungi | in some cases we were able to find former maintainers of those projects and convince them to follow some semblance of our retirement process so users wouldn't continue to think it was maintained and casual developers wouldn't propose patches for it only to see them rot in perpetuity | 15:18 |
| mugsie | fungi: yeah - thats true. then again, there is nothing stopping someone forking it to celiometer/celiometer on github, and keeping the name ... | 15:19 |
| fungi | right, by "same name" i mean the same full name including domain and namespace prefix | 15:22 |
| persia | cdent: You may find more success with the first word than the latter. You too often think carefully about things. | 15:22 |
| ricolin | fungi, mugsie, indeed, in that case it will be even bigger disaster for us | 15:22 |
| fungi | we certainly have no control over where it might get copied to, but at least we can have a notice in the original location that it's no longer maintained by the people who originally maintained it there | 15:22 |
| mugsie | yeah - maybe $NEW_STACKFORGE would work better then | 15:23 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 15:28 | |
| *** irclogbot_3 has quit IRC | 15:36 | |
| *** irclogbot_3 has joined #openstack-tc | 15:38 | |
| fungi | it's still not settled in my mind, but forcing any continued work to be done as a fork of the original at least keeps our hands clean. the readme on the original retired repo can certainly mention where the continued work moved to after becoming unofficial, and offers some notice to people arriving at the original urls | 15:42 |
| mugsie | yea, that makes sense. it also removes a teams ability to publish to docs.o.o | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | someone should really summarize all of that discussion for the mailing list | 15:46 |
| fungi | this came up back when we removed fuel due to inactivity, but instead of retiring it we allowed it to rot and then saw years of confused users cropping up on the mailing list discovering far, far too late that it didn't support new releases of openstack | 15:47 |
| fungi | dhellmann: agreed, i think we have at least two, maybe four, discussions to move to the ml | 15:47 |
| dhellmann | likely | 15:48 |
| dhellmann | fungi : your point there about forcing a rename is good. I wonder if we should formalize that as part of the "remove from governance" process for inactive projects | 15:48 |
| fungi | 1. what to do about leaderless teams this round, 2. the state of telemetry, 3. are ptls necessary and optional alternatives, 4. is it safe to continue official projects in an unofficial capacity | 15:49 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| *** irclogbot_3 has joined #openstack-tc | 15:50 | |
| fungi | dhellmann: it's been on my todo backlog for ages (since the wake of the fuel team being officially disbanded) to write up a resolution... we were originally contemplating declaring some vestigial jurisdiction to allow us to retire them normally if we found out they ceased to be maintained after becoming unofficial, but part of the back-burnering there was that i'm still not sure that's the right way to | 15:51 |
| fungi | proceed | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | fungi : I'd be happy to work together with you on that | 15:52 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has quit IRC | 15:52 | |
| fungi | i'll shift it up my todo list in that case and try to come up with something as soon as the xenial->bionic transition dies down a bit | 15:53 |
| smcginnis | Little trivia - I learned yesterday that LF calls those "code complete" projects that are no longer active but still useful "Emeritus Projects". | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | fungi : ++ | 15:54 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : is that "code complete and maintained"? | 15:54 |
| smcginnis | The "maintained" part is unclear. | 15:55 |
| smcginnis | Maybe "assumed useful until proven broken" | 15:55 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has joined #openstack-tc | 15:55 | |
| fungi | assumed secure until you discover nobody's around to patch that gaping hole someone just found | 15:56 |
| smcginnis | cough cough openssl cough | 15:56 |
| fungi | it's sort of akin to disbanding the road department, with the expectation that whenever a bridge collapses the motorists nearby will prop it back up | 15:59 |
| smcginnis | Probably another interesting thing to folks here if you hadn't heard - LF announced their CommunityBridge effort | 16:01 |
| smcginnis | https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/03/linux-foundation-announces-funding-with-github-for-new-communitybridge-platform-for-developers/ | 16:01 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 16:01 | |
| fungi | smcginnis: yep, based on what i could tell from the slides, since we're not an lf project we could use the lf's communitybridge resources to secure additional funding for openstack | 16:02 |
| mnaser | fungi / dhellmann: will a follow-up ml post be done regarding what fungi mentioned "1. what to do about leaderless teams this round, 2. the state of telemetry, 3. are ptls necessary and optional alternatives, 4. is it safe to continue official projects in an unofficial capacity" ? | 16:43 |
| mnaser | do y'all wanna split that fun between yourself or take up some of them? | 16:43 |
| mnaser | i think ricolin bringing up #3 is interesting given that he's brought up that idea somewhat | 16:43 |
| fungi | yeah, those probably ought to be separate mailing lists threads just for clarity | 16:44 |
| fungi | while there's some relationship between the topics, the goals for each discussion will likely be different | 16:45 |
| fungi | i'm happy to bring #4 to the ml sometime tomorrow, since i've been meaning to eventually put together some resolution on the topic for far too long anyway | 16:54 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I'm most interested in #4 | 16:54 |
| fungi | my thursday isn't quite to meeting-filled this week as it has tended to be lately, i just want to make sure i've got the bionic default node switch behind me before i shift focus | 16:56 |
| dhellmann | I agree with that prioritization completely :-) | 16:56 |
| dhellmann | I do have several meetings tomorrow, but luckily they are all scheduled at the same time | 16:57 |
| fungi | hah, i have some of the same going on, it's true | 16:57 |
| fungi | (like actually double/triple-booked for the same time, not just back-to-back) | 16:57 |
| fungi | but as i said in my update to the default node thread on the ml yesterday, i'm entirely expecting a bunch of projects to need to make job changes on master before they can continue development. they're not trivial to find without actually testing in every single project, for example https://review.openstack.org/642940 | 17:01 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:01 | |
| fungi | thankfully they ought to all be simple fixes | 17:01 |
| fungi | also, any projects which have already branches stable/stein may need to backport whatever they fix on master for those jobs | 17:02 |
| fungi | er, have already branched | 17:02 |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 17:15 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 17:35 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:49 | |
| *** ianychoi has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 18:05 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 18:47 | |
| *** gmann is now known as gmann_afk | 18:48 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 19:01 | |
| fungi | it continues to amuse me how voter turnout differs between tc and ptl races | 19:19 |
| fungi | not even 24 hours in and the nova election has 34% of its ballots cast. openstack charms is almost as good at 28% | 19:20 |
| cmurphy | how many eligible voters are there for those projects? | 19:21 |
| fungi | 68 for openstack charms, 194 for nova | 19:21 |
| mriedem | people <3 nova elections | 20:02 |
| mriedem | because they only come every 4-5 years | 20:02 |
| zhipeng | lol | 20:03 |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 20:09 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 20:16 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| *** gmann_afk is now known as gmann | 20:41 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:41 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:45 | |
| *** weshay is now known as other_guys | 20:46 | |
| *** other_guys is now known as other_guy | 20:46 | |
| *** other_guy is now known as weshay | 20:55 | |
| gmann | Legacy jobs bionic migration: Out of 7 failing projects- nova, cinder, designate, trove, networking-midonet are working on their fix so they are good. freezer and zaqar are the only 2 projects which has not responded yet. I am opening the base patches to review/merge now. | 21:07 |
| *** whoami-rajat has quit IRC | 21:11 | |
| fungi | and they're approved. after those merge we'll also approve 641897 to change the default nodeset in our global base job to ubuntu-bionic as well | 21:34 |
| fungi | after which i expect to sit back and help folks work out how to adjust any one-off jobs that breaks for them | 21:36 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 21:42 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 21:42 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 21:56 | |
| *** marst has quit IRC | 22:14 | |
| fungi | default nodeset switch to ubuntu-bionic is now in place as well | 22:17 |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_afk | 22:18 | |
| *** adriant has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc | 23:06 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:23 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!