15:00:10 <shertel> #startmeeting Ansible Core Public IRC Meeting 15:00:10 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 11 15:00:10 2021 UTC. 15:00:10 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 15:00:10 <zodbot> The chair is shertel. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions. 15:00:10 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:10 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_core_public_irc_meeting' 15:00:24 <shertel> #info agenda https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/635 15:00:36 <shertel> Looks like there are a few things on the agenda today 15:00:43 * Zhenech waves 15:00:52 * shertel waves back 15:00:55 <shertel> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/76113 15:00:59 <shertel> Goneri? 15:02:15 <sivel> this meeting slot really isn't great for us to have a quorum any more 15:03:08 <shertel> yeah, at least on Tuesdays west coast people can attend 15:04:01 <shertel> We can come back to the turbo one 15:04:06 <shertel> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/76262 15:04:22 <shertel> felixfontein, this one is yours 15:04:33 <shertel> lol 15:05:41 <sivel> I feel like we're going to have to move to something like 1700UTC 15:06:14 <sivel> since our required core quorum count is basically the number of people we have on the core team... 15:06:52 <quorum> its going to be a pain for many timezones not having alternating hours .. 15:07:26 <quorum> moving to a ML format to allow async discussion? 15:08:10 <quorum> having discussion open for 1 week, then issue vote if arguments seem setttled? 15:08:54 <shertel> async is good if people remember to read/respond 15:09:13 <Zhenech> I'd fail at that, but I'm also not a regular :) 15:09:59 <sivel> I would likely fail too :) 15:10:01 <shertel> I'd have an easier time remembering to check a github issue than a mailing list thread 15:10:04 <bcoca> well, people opening the topics would be main interested, core team needs then to be disciplined, probably call out new issues in internal weekly core meeting as part of it 15:10:20 <bcoca> he ... proposals ... 15:10:34 <sivel> ...where ideas go to die 15:10:51 <bcoca> so no way live and no way async? 15:13:13 <shertel> we could try the mailing list idea and see if the interaction level changes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:14:24 <shertel> felixfontein: I'll review your PR later today, not sure if there's anything else you wanted to discuss with it. Looks good to me. 15:15:00 <shertel> #topic https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/76277 15:15:28 <Goneri> Hi, 15:15:32 <Zhenech> heh, that's mine 15:15:32 <shertel> Zhenech, did you want to discuss something about this one? 15:15:44 <shertel> hey Goneri 15:15:47 <Zhenech> so I originally put the issue on the agenda yesterday 15:15:57 <Zhenech> as I wanted to raise awareness of the issue and see if I can find someone to fix it 15:16:03 <Zhenech> after a good night of sleep I came up with the patch 15:16:10 <Zhenech> which works, but I find a bit ugly 15:16:27 <Zhenech> most probably because I don't like the dnf module being responsible for packages, groups and modules, all at the same time 15:16:30 <bcoca> package management is rarely pretty 15:16:32 <Zhenech> while tehse have different semantics inside dnf 15:18:48 <Zhenech> so yeah, probably just a "is this crazy? and if not, please review", as I won't have time to campaign for a full split into dnf_package dnf_group and dnf_module 15:19:08 <Goneri> It's Rememberence day, it's off in a lot of countries. 15:20:17 <shertel> it seems like the module is managing a lot - it's a lot simpler when state is just present or absent 15:21:28 <shertel> Zhenech: I'm not especially familiar with that module offhand, but I will review 15:21:45 <shertel> (anyone else have an opinion?) 15:22:11 <sivel> We had an issue where we stated that management of enabling disabling modules should be it's own module 15:22:19 <shertel> Good point about Rememberence day 15:22:20 <sivel> module module module module 15:22:25 <shertel> +1 15:22:38 <Zhenech> aye, feel free to ping me over in #ansible-community (UTC+1 office hours) if you want gory details 15:23:07 <Zhenech> sivel, seems this wasn't truly acted uppon tho? as the current module does enable/disable under the hood? 15:23:54 <sivel> I'd have to go find the issue. dnf isn't something I'm remotely qualified to speak for in reality 15:24:07 <shertel> I'm looking for the issue 15:24:43 <sivel> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/64852 15:24:47 <sivel> that one I think? 15:26:11 <Zhenech> certainly related, yes 15:28:50 <shertel> Zhenech: I'm guessing it should be a separate module, but let me familiarize myself with what the dnf module already does for managing modules and I'll leave a review. 15:29:08 <Zhenech> shertel, thanks! 15:29:25 <shertel> Zhenech: thanks for the work on it! 15:29:56 <shertel> Goneri: do you want to discuss https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/76113? 15:30:08 <shertel> (we don't really have a quorum though) 15:31:00 <shertel> #topic Open floor 15:32:20 <shertel> if nothing else, I'll end in a few minutes 15:32:22 <TimEisler> Hello. I understand my idea https://github.com/ansible/proposals/issues/201 is not of interest but as a first-timer, I want to know: did I at least implement it correctly and completely (test, docs, etc)? 15:32:55 <shertel> #topic https://github.com/ansible/proposals/issues/201 15:33:42 <TimEisler> async feedback via issue comments certianly welcome. 15:34:23 <bcoca> TimEisler: i believe a strategy is a better way to create 'reversible plays' 15:36:34 <TimEisler> Hmm, intersting. I was not reversing the entire play. And yet I did modify lib/ansible/plugins/strategy/__init__.py as part of the implemtnation. So not sure I follow. 15:37:03 <TimEisler> I will study it. 15:37:54 <TimEisler> thank you and thank you shertel. 15:38:17 <shertel> I'll think about it too, thanks for sharing 15:38:31 <shertel> #topic Open floor 15:39:49 <shertel> thanks for attending! 15:39:51 <shertel> #endmeeting