13:05:00 <gundalow> #startmeeting Ansible Collection Inclusion Review Day
13:05:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 24 13:05:00 2021 UTC.
13:05:00 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
13:05:00 <zodbot> The chair is gundalow. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:05:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:05:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_collection_inclusion_review_day'
13:05:06 <andersson007_> o/
13:05:15 <gundalow> #chair felixfontein andersson007_ dericcrago
13:05:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: andersson007_ dericcrago felixfontein gundalow
13:05:54 <felixfontein> \o/
13:07:37 <andersson007_> could anyone remind me if there's a special procedure or not? Or we just should go through every collection submitted and say our opinions?
13:07:40 <gundalow> tadeboro: Your comments and explanation on NetApp were really good. One thing we (internally) spent some time discussing yesterday was "While it maybe OK for NetApp to do this (as they are one of the first collections)  we will not use this as an example for others to follow. I'd hope that https://github.com/ansible-collections/netapp/issues/93 should fix most of it
13:07:47 <gundalow> andersson007_: first time we've done this
13:07:55 <andersson007_> ah, ok
13:08:12 <gundalow> #info The full list of inclusion requests is https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions
13:08:23 <gundalow> bah
13:08:24 <gundalow> #undo
13:08:24 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by gundalow at 13:08:12 : The full list of inclusion requests is https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions
13:08:35 <gundalow> #info The full list of inclusion requests is https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/categories/new-collection-reviews
13:08:52 <felixfontein> andersson007_: basically it's going through them, checking with the guidelines / your check list, and comment on things we find :)
13:08:52 <gundalow> (sorry I forgot my default that `/discussion` shows resolved items)
13:09:20 <andersson007_> felixfontein: cool:)
13:09:37 <felixfontein> and every entry should say whether it is OPTIONAL or REQUIRED
13:09:45 <felixfontein> (entry = comment)
13:10:31 <andersson007_> https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/15 I did a review on equnix.metal - no feedback..
13:11:30 <andersson007_> and you also asked questions with no response
13:12:10 <felixfontein> indeed
13:12:19 <gundalow> I'll ping them
13:12:21 <andersson007_> I think we shouldn't review such submissions today
13:12:26 <andersson007_> with no feedback
13:12:28 <felixfontein> infoblox also isn't very active
13:12:39 <gundalow> andersson007_: agreed, move to the next one
13:12:46 <andersson007_> +1
13:13:03 <felixfontein> in particular because their modules won't work with ansible-core 2.11 (and ansible 4.0.0 will have ansible-core 2.11), and sanity tests currently fail
13:13:52 <felixfontein> in which order do we want to go through them?
13:13:56 <felixfontein> old to new?
13:14:11 <felixfontein> the order in https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/categories/new-collection-reviews will change once someone writes a comment somewhere :)
13:14:28 <felixfontein> (or let's say the default sorting order)
13:14:50 <andersson007_> https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/14 there was a comment "Thanks, @Andersson007. we will complete you feedback and get back" 5 days ago. Not there yet.
13:15:15 <andersson007_> should we skip it too?
13:15:32 <andersson007_> felixfontein: FIFO sounds good
13:15:55 <andersson007_> imo
13:16:39 <felixfontein> I guess if we continue like that, we'll skip all ;)
13:16:56 <felixfontein> the oldest application is infoblox: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/11
13:17:22 <felixfontein> the second-oldest is hpe.nimble
13:17:38 <felixfontein> (which hasn't a review yet)
13:17:55 <andersson007_> infoblox has REQUIREDs from you unsolved, so..
13:18:06 <felixfontein> then comes dellemc, equinix, and then the netapp ones
13:18:08 <andersson007_> hpe.nimble is a candidate then
13:18:49 <felixfontein> infoblox did some work on their collection, but I'm not sure whether they addressed any of the points. at least they definitely didn't react directly to any of them.
13:19:05 <felixfontein> ok, hpe.nimble
13:19:11 <felixfontein> #topic hpe.nimble: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/13
13:20:15 <felixfontein> ah, they have this 'great' repository structure again...
13:22:17 <gundalow> hum, I don't get why people do that
13:22:43 <felixfontein> I guess, because you can check it out and run ansible-test without having to check it out correctly...
13:23:09 <gundalow> No CI (in GitHub at least)
13:23:10 <dmsimard> it's not even ansible_collections, it's ansible_collection which probably doesn't work ?
13:23:19 <dmsimard> also hi o/
13:23:19 <felixfontein> and/or because you want files outside the general collection structure in the repo that you don't have to exclude form the build process (though that sounds more like a lazy excuse)
13:23:24 <andersson007_> is it crucial or i can start to review other stuff there?
13:23:26 <felixfontein> hi dmsimard!
13:23:32 <andersson007_> hi dmsimard
13:23:38 <andersson007_> !
13:23:38 <github-linkbot> Command "" not found.
13:23:39 <felixfontein> dmsimard: indeed!
13:23:56 <gundalow> #chair dmsimard
13:23:56 <zodbot> Current chairs: andersson007_ dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein gundalow
13:24:05 <dmsimard> I'll be semi afk for a while longer, internal presentation and dad ops
13:24:12 <felixfontein> #info guidelines: https://github.com/ansible-collections/overview/blob/main/collection_requirements.rst
13:24:17 <gundalow> dmsimard: ack
13:24:19 <felixfontein> #info checklist: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ansible-collections/overview/main/collection_requirements.rst
13:24:33 <felixfontein> darn
13:24:34 <felixfontein> #undo
13:24:34 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by felixfontein at 13:24:19 : checklist: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ansible-collections/overview/main/collection_requirements.rst
13:24:40 <felixfontein> #info checklist: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ansible-collections/overview/main/collection_checklist.md
13:25:00 <andersson007_> thanks felixfontein
13:25:14 <andersson007_> you're reading my thoughts
13:26:31 <felixfontein> hmm, do we allow Apache license right now?
13:26:58 <felixfontein> in the guidelines we only mention GPLv3+ and BSD-2-clause
13:27:36 <felixfontein> they also say "We will have a list of other open source licenses which are allowed as soon as we get Red Hat's legal team to approve such a list for us."
13:27:49 <felixfontein> gundalow: do you know if there are news on that?
13:28:03 <andersson007_> Yes, i've just also noticed HPE Nimble Storage Content Collection for Ansible is released under the Apache-2.0 license.
13:33:24 <felixfontein> the test section isn't very great :)
13:33:31 <felixfontein> - [ ] passed `ansible-test sanity` - REQUIRED: please create a ignore-2.11.txt file, after all Ansible 4.0.0 is based on ansible-core 2.11 - REQUIRED: multiple validate-modules issues are failing with the 2.11 sanity checks
13:34:02 <felixfontein> the changelog also isn't great, there's no human-readable version and it is missing the 1.0.1 release
13:36:45 <felixfontein> I think I went through everything that can be done quickly
13:36:54 <felixfontein> (I've just pasted my current version of the checklist to GH)
13:37:08 <felixfontein> now comes most of the standards and docs section
13:41:57 <andersson007_> I see tag 1.0.0 but on galaxy there's release 1.0.1
13:43:37 <felixfontein> galaxy.yml says 1.0.1, I guess they "just" didn't release it properly after fixing some first issues
13:43:47 <andersson007_> I think when a new collection is submitted, we should put the references to the requirements. There can be a lot stuff fixed from a submission date to a review one
13:43:56 <andersson007_> felixfontein: yeah
13:44:16 <felixfontein> they don't use FQCNs in examples
13:48:07 <andersson007_> and they use ANSIBLE_METADATA
13:49:10 <felixfontein> true. and with support:community :)
13:51:39 <andersson007_> i even haven't run ansible_reviewer yet..
13:51:49 <andersson007_> should i? :)
13:56:51 <andersson007_> I see version_added 2.9 everywhere. It wasn't included in ansible/ansible, so it should be `1.0.0`?
13:57:13 <felixfontein> yes
13:57:41 <felixfontein> the documentation looks generally quite good, appart from version_added, missing FQCNs, and some formatting details
13:58:47 <felixfontein> (or let's say, I've seen a lot worse ;) )
13:58:50 <cyberpear> I'd also point out that when we had `ansible/ansible` modules, we didn't want the vendor name in the module name, only the product name, so `hpe_nimble_fc` would have been instad `nimble_fc`
13:59:54 <felixfontein> cyberpear: good point!
14:00:06 <felixfontein> do you want to add it to the review?
14:00:58 <felixfontein> #chair cyberpear
14:00:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: andersson007_ cyberpear dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein gundalow
14:01:01 <cyberpear> I'm generally against dropping the product prefix from the module, because you'll end up colliding when you try to mix something like  `aws.aws.server` and `gcp.gcp.server` in the same playbook
14:01:31 <cyberpear> but the vendor prefix shouldn't be there, imo... I'll add to the review.
14:01:33 <felixfontein> well, only if you use the cursed `collections:` keyword ;)
14:02:00 <Zhenech> cursed ♥
14:02:10 <felixfontein> :D
14:14:24 <dmsimard> ok I am released \o/
14:14:29 <dmsimard> are we still looking at hpe.nimble ?
14:14:47 <felixfontein> I think I'm through with it
14:14:51 <felixfontein> andersson007_: how are you doing?
14:15:25 <andersson007_> I'm looking at the nimble
14:18:18 <dmsimard> ok I will jump on the next one
14:19:33 <felixfontein> dellemc?
14:20:35 <felixfontein> though I guess I'll look only at some points, since we're still waiting for them to adjust andersson007_'s feedback from a week ago
14:20:55 <dmsimard> I'll wait until meeting switches over to the next one so I don't go out of turn :p
14:25:10 <felixfontein> I'm currently giving the hpe collection a quick review, basically some things that I see when looking at it - once andersson007_ is done with nimble we can choose/continue with the next one
14:26:30 <andersson007_> feel free to start next one. I'll finish soon
14:30:26 <felixfontein> it's a bit annoying that some collections have a review for already some time now, but don't really react on it
14:30:53 <felixfontein> I guess the next would be equinix, but also there hasn't been any feedback to the existing review from a week ago
14:33:29 <felixfontein> I'll look a  bit at equinix until andersson007_ is done :)
14:34:03 <andersson007_> yeah. I've just finished nimble. I think i should go to sleep a bit otherwise I won't be able to be at the irc meeting:)
14:34:19 <felixfontein> lol ok :)
14:34:25 <andersson007_> :)
14:39:15 <felixfontein> couldn't find anything that looks bad on the first glance (at least nothing that andersson007_ hasn't mentioned yet)
14:39:34 <felixfontein> I guess next come the netapp collections?
14:40:24 <felixfontein> netapp.azure, netapp.cloudmanager and netapp.um_info
14:41:15 <felixfontein> andersson007_ already reviewed cloudmanager, jillr already um_info
14:44:44 <dmsimard> let's do azure if it hasn't been looked at before ?
14:45:03 <felixfontein> sounds good
14:45:20 <felixfontein> a bit of a problem is that all three collections are in the same repository, so some comments affect all of them
14:48:48 <dmsimard> oh, it's that one :)
14:49:36 <felixfontein> yes ;)
14:49:58 <felixfontein> we only have 'special' ones today it seems - we just finished the only non-special (hpe.nimble)
14:51:24 <dmsimard> so https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/17 it is ?
14:51:38 <dmsimard> #topic netapp.azure https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/17
14:52:43 <dmsimard> that's ... not semantic versioning
14:54:30 <jillr> popping in real quick before I have to run into meetings for a while, all the netapp collections looked to have the same remaining items on the checklist needing fixed so I sort of took the comments on each as blanket reviews to all of them
14:54:53 <jillr> all the other collections in the list looked to have blocking items outstanding from other folk's reviews already as well
14:55:18 <dmsimard> jillr: thanks for looking at them, appreciate the help :)
14:58:27 <felixfontein> #chair jillr
14:58:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: andersson007_ cyberpear dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein gundalow jillr
14:58:34 <felixfontein> jillr: thanks!
15:00:39 <felixfontein> dmsimard: thanks for changing the topic, I got a bit distracted by one of our cats :)
15:00:45 <dmsimard> tadeboro already mentioned the lack of semantic versioning here: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/16#discussioncomment-506143 so I won't repeat it
15:01:03 <felixfontein> now she is lying behind my chair, so when I roll back I'll flatten her.... apparently not the most intelligent cat :)
15:01:33 <dmsimard> heh
15:03:15 <felixfontein> now I moved her away, and then... she comes back. -.-
15:03:48 <felixfontein> suicide cat... :)
15:10:48 <dmsimard> not coming across a whole lot that hasn't already been said
15:10:59 <dmsimard> it does have a dependency on azure.azcollection which is already in the package
15:11:41 <felixfontein> the dependency is missing >=1.0.0
15:11:53 <felixfontein> and there's a tgz file in the repo
15:12:02 <dmsimard> yeah I didn't know that "*" even worked
15:12:20 <dmsimard> felixfontein: yeah I noticed the tgz file but it's not in the actual collection tarball (I downloaded and checked)
15:14:48 <felixfontein> "*" is the default value I think
15:14:54 <felixfontein> (which means I don't care which version)
15:15:33 <dmsimard> I thought so
15:18:21 <felixfontein> I've added a general comment on CI (not all sanity tests were ran) at https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/16#discussioncomment-525272
15:24:10 <abadger1999> I pushed the ansible-4.0.0alpha2 tarball yesterday night.  I'm working on the announcements now.
15:26:04 <felixfontein> \o/
15:26:19 <felixfontein> (and good morning :) )
15:33:21 <abadger1999> Good morning :-)
15:33:34 <abadger1999> felixfontein: (et al) Last nioght, I added support for doing this:
15:33:36 <abadger1999> python -c 'from ansible_collections.ansible_release import ansible_version; print(ansible_version)'
15:33:41 <abadger1999> 4.0.0a2
15:33:57 <felixfontein> I've seen the PR and added a :+1: I think ;)
15:34:34 <abadger1999> I'm not happy with the name (ansible repeated three times) but I don't want to be unclear.... ansible_collections is a shared directory structure and the version only applies to the ansible package.
15:34:42 <felixfontein> it would be great if `ansible --version` would show that as well, but I think the core team doesn't want that
15:34:43 <abadger1999> Do you have any suggestions?
15:35:10 <felixfontein> I think the repetition is good and warranted, for basically the reason you mentioned above :)
15:35:28 <abadger1999> Cool :-)  I'll leave it as is and add a note about it to the release notes.
15:36:08 <felixfontein> :+1:
15:40:02 <felixfontein> dmsimard: I added https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/17#discussioncomment-525381
15:40:37 <felixfontein> it's too bad that we don't have more collection applications in a state for a proper review :/
15:42:50 <tadeboro> Hi all. I just finished my last meeting for today. Did you leave anything for me to review? (I am still reading the backlog, it will take me a while to read it through.)
15:43:53 <felixfontein> tadeboro: we mostly noticed that there isn't much to review, since most collections already have reviews which were waiting for feedback for some time
15:44:18 <felixfontein> it feels a bit wasteful to review them again without the first review(s) being addressed first
15:44:52 <tadeboro> Ugh, not an ideal situation. And I agree: reviewing things that did not fix already identified issues makes little sense.
15:45:46 <felixfontein> I think I wrote at least a comment for every collection with a few things I spotted that might not have been mentioned yet (or I overlooked in the other reviews), but I'd rather wait with a full review
15:48:55 <tadeboro> I see that semver is still too hard for some people. Oh well, it is what it is ...
15:50:16 <felixfontein> :)
15:50:24 <felixfontein> also having changelog entries for all releases is not trivial
15:50:30 <felixfontein> or even tags for releases
15:50:50 <dmsimard> my understanding from looking at the netapp things
15:51:11 <dmsimard> is that they have everything in one repo so that it's more convenient for them but also release all their collections with the same (monthly calver) tag every month
15:51:31 <dmsimard> I suppose having multiple repos and each collection having their own versioning would be a non-zero overhead
15:51:41 <dmsimard> doesn't mean that we have to be cool with it, but I can see the reasoning
15:52:58 <felixfontein> dmsimard: they can still use semver for all collections at once
15:53:21 <felixfontein> some collections would get major releases without breaking changes, but that's better IMO than not having semver
15:54:08 <dmsimard> yeah don't get me wrong, I would tend to stand by our requirement on semver because otherwise it would become too complicated for us to manage versions boundaries across versions of the ansible package
15:56:41 <dmsimard> felixfontein: added a first run of the checklist on netapp.azure
15:57:07 <dmsimard> I suggest we take a break, team will be in meeting soon
15:57:45 <felixfontein> sounds good :)
15:58:33 <felixfontein> at least the person from netapp seems to be actively working on it
15:58:46 <felixfontein> (https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/16#discussioncomment-525413)
15:59:04 <dmsimard> shall we close the meeting ? maybe summarize what are the reviews we looked at
16:07:16 <felixfontein> dmsimard: sounds good
16:07:23 <felixfontein> (sorry got distracted again :) )
16:07:58 <felixfontein> though the reviews are mostly clear from the minutes I think
16:08:08 <felixfontein> #topic Summary
16:10:48 <felixfontein> #info Reviewed two collections and added comments to some more
16:11:06 <felixfontein> #info All collections looked at need improvements
16:11:40 <felixfontein> #info We did not look more closely at collections that have reviews with issues that need addressing but haven't been addressed for some time
16:11:43 <felixfontein> #endmeeting