| gmann | tc-members and this also, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/836706 | 00:15 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Retire tempest-lib https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/836704 | 00:26 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Fix the dependency hierarchy in repo retirement process https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/837787 | 00:42 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: Revise the tick deprecation example https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/837604 | 00:49 |
| *** pojadhav|afk is now known as pojadhav | 03:56 | |
| *** pojadhav is now known as pojadhav|afk | 11:00 | |
| *** pojadhav|afk is now known as pojadhav | 11:58 | |
| gmann | tc-members: I have created the TC tracker for Zed cycle, I have added a few assignees as per they are already working on those. we still need an assignee for 5 items, please check and add your name to the assignee you would like to work on https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-zed-tracker | 12:30 |
| rosmaita | gmann: ack | 12:55 |
| gmann | dansmith: slaweq I added your name also for 'Gate Health' item as you are doing that currently https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-zed-tracker#L12 | 12:57 |
| *** pojadhav is now known as pojadhav|afk | 14:22 | |
| icey | hey gmann; the project-config change is now landed, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/835429 is now ready? | 15:21 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Remove TC Liaisons framework https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/837891 | 15:22 |
| fungi | icey: the change hasn't deployed yet, just fair warning | 15:23 |
| fungi | so the project doesn't exist just yet, but hopefully should in a few minutes | 15:24 |
| icey | no worries - I'm about to go offline for a long weekend :-D | 15:24 |
| gmann | icey: sure, did recheck and will approve after zuul +1. thanks | 15:25 |
| icey | thanks gmann and fungi! | 15:28 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Add Ganesha based Ceph NFS Charm https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/835429 | 15:42 |
| gmann | icey: approved and merged ^^, have a nice weekend! | 15:42 |
| prometheanfire | suppose I should be in here anyway | 15:57 |
| gmann | prometheanfire: +1. indeed. | 15:57 |
| fungi | what's one more channel after you're already in 100? | 15:58 |
| prometheanfire | nah, just 59 | 15:59 |
| clarkb | I think there was a question about whether or not python3.10 support in requirements would be necessary? I mentioned that I thought 3.10 testing was intended to begin but not be required | 16:09 |
| gmann | 3.10 is target for next release but testing it as non voting job. | 16:09 |
| gmann | non voting in zed cycle | 16:10 |
| gmann | for non voting testing we might need it in requirement | 16:11 |
| fungi | and right now i guess fedora 35 is the only test platform we have which provides it? | 16:11 |
| clarkb | bullseye can install it via unstable? | 16:11 |
| gmann | ubuntu 22.04 should be out in and 2 weeks or so | 16:12 |
| fungi | well, yeah on bullseye we could pull it from testing/unstable but the same could be said for having focal nodes pull it from jammy | 16:12 |
| clarkb | ya I'm not sure those are good long term options but for getting early info on how broken is 3.10 on various projects it may be good enough | 16:13 |
| clarkb | then switch to something more stable like jammy once it arrives | 16:14 |
| fungi | related, did we get confirmation that dropping 3.6 was okay even though there's no rhel 9 with newer python yet? | 16:14 |
| fungi | s/confirmation/consensus/ | 16:15 |
| gmann | yes, it is dropped now. we do not test it anymore. Yoga was also indication of drop but we extend that support for Yoga. | 16:15 |
| clarkb | right one thing I've wondered about the current test platform statements is if we've diverged from the original intent of using centos and whether or not that was intentional | 16:16 |
| clarkb | in particular the goal as I understood it was always to ensure rhel was supported. We couldn't get rhel test nodes so we used a stand in. In our case centos. Since then centos has stopped being a stand in for rhel. But there are stand ins that are available instead | 16:16 |
| clarkb | if the goal is to test compat with rhel and maintain that support it might make sense to stop targetting centos and instead target a rhel clone. (that would impact the python version choices) | 16:17 |
| clarkb | I don't think either choice is necessarily wrong. Its more a matter of ensuring our actions match our intentions | 16:18 |
| fungi | i get that we officially dropped 3.6 for zed, just wondering what the rhel plan is there | 16:18 |
| fungi | maybe rhel no longer relies on their "system python" for running openstack services and assumes containers with newer python or something | 16:19 |
| gmann | may be, not sure about that. no one has complained about dropping py3.6 at least yet | 16:25 |
| clarkb | with my end user hat on I have some concern that we're implying to people that centos stream is a stable platform. Our own testing indicates this isn't really the case currently. | 16:31 |
| clarkb | I'm not super concerned about the python versions myself. More that impression that we test on this platform because it is stable and that you might consider it too | 16:31 |
| clarkb | IMO centos stream is more like fedora now. Still a useful forward looking tool that can catch issues early, but not a stable platform to deploy production services on | 16:32 |
| slaweq | gmann: hi, I'm basically off today and tomorrow but I just looked at Your etherpad with zed tracker | 17:42 |
| slaweq | should I just put my name on the item(s) which I want to work on? | 17:42 |
| slaweq | or is there any more formal process for that too? | 17:43 |
| gmann | slaweq: you can pick which you want to work on. no formal process on that | 17:43 |
| slaweq | gmann: ok, thx | 17:43 |
| gmann | cool | 17:43 |
| slaweq | gmann: I assigned myself to "Improvement in project governance", is that ok for You and others? | 17:44 |
| gmann | slaweq: +1, thanks | 17:46 |
| slaweq | thx gmann | 17:46 |
| gmann | slaweq: rosmaita if you are around, need review in this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/836706 | 17:58 |
| rosmaita | gmann: acl | 17:59 |
| slaweq | gmann: looking | 17:59 |
| rosmaita | i mean, "ack" | 17:59 |
| slaweq | gmann: thx for fixing that failure in the ci :) | 18:00 |
| slaweq | I wasn't really sure if that's script's issue or what exactly | 18:01 |
| gmann | slaweq: yeah, I was also checking scripts then later saw the url and its was me not script :) | 18:01 |
| slaweq | :) | 18:01 |
| rosmaita | gmann: do we need to rollcall https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/836706 , or just a regular review? | 18:03 |
| slaweq | gmann: regarding zed tracking, I can assign myself also to " Remove release naming instead just use the number" but I'm not sure if I should get more items or maybe left if for someone else :) | 18:03 |
| gmann | rosmaita: rollcall too and as it si project-updates we need only two +1 rollcall | 18:04 |
| rosmaita | ok | 18:04 |
| gmann | slaweq: yeah, me too. It will be good if other members can also take and we can distribute the things in balance way. at least that is first things we can try and later if there is pending item we can pick that later | 18:05 |
| slaweq | gmann: sure, so please keep in mind that I'll by happy to help with some other items from that list too :) | 18:05 |
| slaweq | ok, I'm going off now as I'm not working today (and tomorrow) :) | 18:06 |
| slaweq | have a great day and rest of the week | 18:06 |
| gmann | slaweq: ack for volunteer and really helpful. | 18:07 |
| gmann | have a nice long weekend! | 18:07 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Retire openstack-health https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/836706 | 18:45 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Resoltuion to drop the lower constraints maintenance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/838004 | 19:11 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Resoltuion to drop the lower constraints maintenance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/838004 | 19:12 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Resolution to drop the lower constraints maintenance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/838004 | 19:30 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!