15:03:45 <bcoca> #startmeeting ansible core irc public meeting
15:03:45 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 21 15:03:45 2019 UTC.
15:03:45 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:03:45 <zodbot> The chair is bcoca. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:03:45 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:03:45 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_core_irc_public_meeting'
15:04:05 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/32214
15:04:13 <bcoca> akasurde?
15:04:30 <alongchamps> I think akasurde's computer just went to sleep per my join/leave logs
15:04:35 <alongchamps> unfortunately
15:05:09 <sivel> bcoca: I think we talked about that PR last meeting.  It needs integration tests, and sdoran said it's on his review list, but likely won't get to it soon
15:05:22 <alongchamps> I remember something to that effect as well
15:05:39 <bcoca> just wanted to make sure aka actually got to state the case, last meeting was all our assumptions
15:05:41 <sdoran> That is accurate.
15:05:51 <sivel> bcoca: just making sure :)
15:06:29 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/53698
15:06:33 <bcoca> @felixfontein ?
15:06:41 <bcoca> +1 on intent, have not reviewed thoguh
15:07:44 <sivel> I haven't either.  Ideally I think I'd like to make aliases automatically mutually exclusive
15:07:52 <sivel> but I don't think we can do that in 1 step
15:08:10 <bcoca> this is warning, which i think is good enough for now
15:08:43 <bcoca> i can see users trying to be 'smart' with dynamic argument allocation complaining about this .. but i would argue 'you are doing it wrong'
15:09:26 <cyberpear> +1 to the idea, but is it necessary to pass alias_warnings everywhere?
15:11:10 <cyberpear> (don't hold it up on that account, though...)
15:11:29 <bcoca> k, so i dont see oposition to idea, feel free to review and comment on ticket, since author isn't here, just going to assume he was asking if concept was greenlit
15:11:50 <bcoca> will close for now, might reopen if our assumptions were wrong
15:12:05 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/49000
15:12:10 <bcoca> @ju2wheels ?
15:12:15 <ju2wheels> #49000 is to allow git module to clone a repo without forcing recursive submodule init.
15:12:26 <ju2wheels> It changes the 'recursive' option to be solely responsible for recursive clone enabling/disabling and
15:12:32 <ju2wheels> adds explicit submodule_init and submodule_depth options to allow for the fact that you can init submodules without requiring recursive cloning.
15:12:47 <ju2wheels> The defaults for all of these are backwards compatible.
15:12:49 <bcoca> that changes default behaviour?
15:12:56 <bcoca> ah, then i see no issues
15:13:05 <ju2wheels> There was a PR review comment that submodule_depth did not allow for proper fallback but as I outlined, it does and it actually copies the same fallback methodology leveraged by the existing depth parameter.
15:13:06 <bcoca> but you are going to have to wait for 2.9
15:13:26 <ju2wheels> thats fine, I figured that
15:13:33 <ju2wheels> I just dont want to keep rebasing these :-)
15:14:01 <bcoca> @webknjaz want to re review?
15:14:52 <bcoca> i'll add to my list, jic, but it might not be merged till next week after we create stable-2.8 branch, we froze today so it cannot go in right now
15:15:09 <ju2wheels> k
15:15:09 <bcoca> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/50829
15:15:15 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/50829
15:15:22 <ju2wheels> #50829 is to add CLI argument to ansible-pull to allow a generic way to pass options to SCM submodule in use.
15:15:33 <bcoca> ^ i thought we already agreed to this?
15:15:46 <ju2wheels> The only last point not addressed I believe was that I was asked to remove the deprecation warnings because they shouldnt go into the same release as they are introduced supposedly.
15:16:08 <webknjaz> Oh, I completely missed the pings... I may be able to do review on Monday. If not, feel free to ping me directly
15:16:12 <bcoca> sounds rite
15:17:13 <bcoca> but sadly, its also going to have to wait a bit for 2.9/devel
15:17:22 <bcoca> anything else on that?
15:17:30 <ju2wheels> not from my end
15:17:34 <bcoca> seems i might need to rereview since changes were made since i approved
15:17:40 * bcoca adds to list
15:17:45 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/53430
15:17:54 <bcoca> @jamescassell
15:18:01 * cyberpear waves
15:18:08 <cyberpear> just need a couple of shipit's
15:18:26 <bcoca> note: put irc nick in agenda (as ticket description asks)
15:18:28 <cyberpear> there is a conversation on the original PR where this was added, where it was agreed to rename:
15:18:36 <sivel> maxamillion already approved it
15:18:38 <sivel> fwiw
15:18:42 <bcoca> fine, but will have to be 2.9 at this point
15:19:00 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/53960
15:19:01 <cyberpear> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/43211#issuecomment-447073230
15:19:12 <maxamillion> sivel: what's up?
15:19:15 <cyberpear> it was added in 2.8
15:19:25 <cyberpear> i.e, we'll have one release with old name and one  w/ new name
15:19:35 <cyberpear> it has not been in any release to date
15:19:37 <maxamillion> bcoca: wait, why 2.9?
15:19:39 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/53430
15:19:48 <bcoca> maxamillion: freeze
15:19:56 <bcoca> but i'm going to let @abadger1999 decide on this one
15:20:03 <bcoca> since its a rename and it was not released
15:20:19 <maxamillion> I did `shipit` 14 days ago
15:20:29 <bcoca> why didnt u merge?
15:20:40 <maxamillion> I should have
15:20:49 <sdoran> Isn't community freeze a bit later?
15:21:03 <maxamillion> sdoran: oh actually ... yes
15:21:06 <cyberpear> I thought community freeze was next week, per a comment in #ansible-devel earlier in the week
15:21:20 <bcoca> sorry, assumed rhsm was 'core'
15:21:27 <bcoca> maxamillion: mergeet
15:21:28 <sdoran> You'd think :)
15:21:37 <bcoca> ... no comment ...
15:21:37 * maxamillion swings the hammer
15:21:49 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/53960
15:21:53 <cyberpear> so the selinux,  I pulled from the RHEL System Roles project. There was no objection to upstreaming it
15:21:57 <maxamillion> MERGED
15:22:10 <gundalow> Freeze dates: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/docs/docsite/rst/roadmap/ROADMAP_2_8.rst
15:22:25 <maxamillion> oooo, selogin
15:23:45 <cyberpear> I took the original code and brought it up to snuff, leaving two commits so you can see what was my work and what was in linux-system-roles/selinux
15:24:10 <bcoca> any volunteers to review?
15:24:59 <maxamillion> I'll take it
15:24:59 * bcoca goes to find box of crickets
15:25:00 <cyberpear> (the selinux role is fully supported these days, btw: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/7.6_release_notes/new_features_red_hat_enterprise_linux_system_roles_powered_by_ansible )
15:25:14 <bcoca> maxamillion++
15:25:20 * bcoca saves big on cricket money
15:25:25 <maxamillion> NOT TODAY CRICKETS
15:25:27 <maxamillion> :)
15:25:36 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/53438
15:25:44 <bcoca> @sanja-shetty?
15:26:07 <maxamillion> oh that's cool
15:26:53 <maxamillion> I have a soft spot for Dell stuff ... >.>
15:27:08 <maxamillion> mostly because that was my first "real" job out of college
15:27:14 <maxamillion> annnnnyhoo
15:27:49 <bcoca> added comment, you can review if you want ... assuming that is what submitter wants
15:28:07 <bcoca> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/53509
15:28:12 <bcoca> @jagadesshnv ?
15:28:18 <bcoca> guessing same here
15:29:59 <bcoca> k, then skipping
15:30:03 <bcoca> #topic open floor
15:33:03 <bcoca> k, if no new items closing meeting in 1min
15:37:12 <bcoca> #endmeeting