14:33:05 #startmeeting RELENG (2016-06-20) 14:33:05 Meeting started Mon Jun 20 14:33:05 2016 UTC. The chair is dgilmore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:33:05 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:33:05 The meeting name has been set to 'releng_(2016-06-20)' 14:33:05 #meetingname releng 14:33:05 #chair dgilmore nirik tyll sharkcz bochecha masta pbrobinson pingou maxamillion 14:33:05 The meeting name has been set to 'releng' 14:33:05 Current chairs: bochecha dgilmore masta maxamillion nirik pbrobinson pingou sharkcz tyll 14:33:08 #topic init process 14:33:38 morning 14:33:52 * pbrobinson is here 14:34:01 * sharkcz is here 14:34:38 going to try keep this short today 14:34:56 planning to skip the secondary arch updates, and just cover the one issue 14:35:18 well secondaries are all done with F-24 so that's fine with me :) 14:35:24 ack :-) 14:35:30 hurray. ;) congrats 14:35:42 hiya guys 14:37:02 #topic spins that missed the boat 14:37:40 they didn't miss the boat, all their bits were there just there was issues with their compose 14:37:49 they missed the boat 14:38:00 but it was because of anaconda that they did 14:38:07 well except for Jam_KDE 14:38:35 #info Jam_KDE was not installable due to not all of its packages being resolvable 14:38:37 missing the boat makes it sound like it was something they didn't do which isn't the case 14:39:04 #info SoaS and Design_Suite missed the release due toa bug in anaconda 14:39:16 pbrobinson: in the Jam KDE case it was 14:39:29 missing teh boat means they did not make the release 14:39:30 dgilmore: sure, but for the other two it's a different issue 14:39:45 it does not differenciate why 14:39:58 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_SIG 14:40:16 the information in the spins sig pages is woefully out of date 14:40:29 even the list of spins in F24 is innacuare 14:40:32 the spins sig is pretty much nonexistant. ;) 14:40:35 dgilmore: yes ... >.> 14:40:43 .hello maxamillion 14:40:44 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 14:40:51 sorry I'm late, was on the phone 14:41:18 #info Spins documatation is innacuate and incomplete. 14:41:31 #info Spins SIG is not existant 14:41:43 maxamillion: no problem 14:41:53 we should clean that all up, but thats not really the issue here. ;) 14:41:59 I did respond to mattdm's email 14:42:15 yes, but that has been the case for as long as I can remember, going back to around F-13 when I added the Netbook spin it wasn't great 14:42:49 the issue is if we can or should or want to do anything for those 2 spins for f24 release... :) 14:43:27 #info the issue is if we can or should or want to do anything for those 2 spins for f24 release... 14:43:31 I think we should, mattdm emailed to the rel-eng list about an hour or so about it 14:43:46 all the options are hacky. ;( 14:44:04 since I forgot to use #info last week. and was called out on it going to make sure that I do better this week 14:44:14 you all can do it for important things also 14:44:24 yes, but I don't see why those spins should be disadvantaged for something out of their control and for doing the work 14:44:36 I guess it's: 1) do nothing, they don't exist. 2) use the last nightly composes and put them somewhere perm and have websites point to them with a note, 3) something else? 14:44:43 especially since the anaconda/lorax bug was opened beginning of march 14:44:49 I think the only viable option is to take the last known working nightly and put it in an unofficial name space in alt 14:45:47 that will have the prerelease notice on it right? 14:45:49 4) resubmit the failed build which should create the identical F-24 GA compose option, put it on alt.fp.o, sign checksums, let websites know 14:45:50 mostly I think that if we do something that its is viable to do a nightly, that if we keep resubmitting the failed task, it will look like it should have been part of the release 14:45:57 It needs to be clear it is not 14:46:14 it is more an issue for websites and marketting to deal with 14:46:47 pbrobinson: that ignores the compose metadata, particullary when it comes to PDC 14:47:05 if we want to trust the data in PDC we need to ensure it does not lie 14:47:21 dgilmore: where is PDC even used yet? 14:47:25 doing anything is going to get increeasingly difficulat as we automate everything 14:47:35 pbrobinson: does not matter, we want it to be used 14:47:58 we want to move forward with it being an accurate source of information 14:48:02 interesting point about pdc 14:48:08 would resubmitting even work? some of that data might not be in the same places as it was when the compose was running? 14:48:22 if we know from the start it lies because we ignored things we are setting ourselves up badly 14:48:24 I still think it's bullshit that we just drop stuff for things completely out of the spins control, with no warning and without even taking it to FESCo 14:48:43 hum, I guess it would 14:48:58 nirik: it would 14:49:14 how about: 5) we fire off new composes of those with the rc2 stuff and use those... 14:49:29 any risk doing that? 14:49:39 by use I mean put in a place in alt like proposed for nightly 14:49:42 nirik: you mean just the two failed spins? 14:49:47 yes. 14:49:50 I tested resumitting the SoaS one and the first time I tried it worked http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14522162 14:50:26 pbrobinson: that may have been a bad thing to do 14:50:28 that would be better than a nightly as it wouldn't have the prerelease notice and such 14:50:48 does koji keep track of the old failed build, or it replaces it? 14:50:48 if people find the build they may wonder what is going on and why it was not in the release 14:50:58 it replaces it 14:51:20 nirik: the last nightlys will not have the prerlease notice 14:51:21 yeah, thats the problem there. ;( 14:51:26 well people are already wondering why a SoaS image isn't in the release even without them know about that 14:52:11 anaconda looks at fedora-release and if the release of teh build is 1 or higher it turns betanag off 14:52:17 ok. 14:52:59 if need be we could do a new nightly compose, with just the final content 14:53:13 and just the two images 14:53:38 that way we could be sure that the content matches GA 14:53:39 why do all that extra work? 14:54:00 it would give us the metadata in pdc 14:54:02 can we "adjust" pdc ? 14:54:18 everything about this feels like a giant one-off which makes me worry that this will lead to a slippery slope of making exceptions for blocker bugs in the future, "but you did it last time...." 14:54:20 ie, tell it about the resubmitted jobs? 14:54:21 I mean the anaconda/lorax issue is intermittent so it might pass/fail, statistically it would be just as likely to pass the resubmitting of the failed jobs 14:54:23 would have to ask threebean, but I do not think so 14:54:27 at least not easily 14:54:27 and less work 14:55:01 maxamillion: I agree, I also think that as pbrobinson is the spin owner of SoaS his view is a littel biassed 14:55:23 pbrobinson: less work how exactly? 14:55:32 maxamillion: if you read the BZ on it (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315541#c12) it was meant to be an Alpha blocker 14:56:20 dgilmore: you might think that, if we'd gone with RC 1.1 which had a working SoaS but had other failures at that point my opinion was still the same 14:56:21 * nirik doesn't see any reason to be unreasonable here. We should find a way to get people those 2 spins, since they aren't broken due to any fault of theres and we do have ways to provide them. 14:56:24 pbrobinson: I'm not sure I follow what you mean by that ... where were things missed? what was the blocker against 14:56:27 ?* 14:56:39 dgilmore: I am more than capable of splitting the two opinions 14:56:48 threebean: you happen to be around for a PDC question? ;) 14:56:55 maxamillion: read adamw's comment 14:57:28 pbrobinson: so it was an alpha blocker against either anaconda or pungi4 that never god fixed before alpha went out? 14:57:34 got* 14:58:03 maxamillion: no, it didn't get accepted as a blocker, because the workaround was "meh, we will just re-run it until we have all the release blocking parts, and too bad about the rest" 14:58:17 maxamillion: not sure if it was never proposed or what, my point was that there's no reason that something like this should ever be anything but a one off exception once the bug is fixed 14:58:34 pbrobinson: that's my point, it's a one-off 14:58:37 I don't like one-offs 14:58:51 maxamillion: but it didn't appear to get the appropriate escalation/attention early enough in the cycle so that we'd never have to have this discussion 14:59:07 I've seen them be used as precendent that leads to 100 hour weeks in every job I've ever worked at since getting into IT as a profession 14:59:23 nirik: I'm here now 14:59:25 * threebean reads up 15:00:00 threebean: 2 of the spins failed to compose (due to no fault of their own). We could resubmit those jobs (one of them already has been)... but then pdc knows nothing. 15:00:16 how hard would it be to import/change the info for those in pdc after the fact. 15:00:42 if we have a complete compose.json and rpms.json productmd files from pungi, very easy. 15:00:50 if not.. I'm not sure how hard. but, harder. 15:00:54 * dgilmore notes that will meanmanually munging the compose tree 15:00:59 after it is on the mirrors 15:01:14 yeah, this sounds hard. 15:01:26 not impossible. 15:01:28 i think we'd have to mung the metadata, then manually upload it to PDC. 15:01:36 * threebean nods 15:01:44 its nmot impossibe, it is a lot of work to do right 15:02:25 pungi records the variant an image is in 15:02:47 so we would have to put the images in Spins/ and Labs/ 15:02:53 change the CHECKSUMS 15:02:56 I guess then I am just in favor of pulling the last nightly (and hopefully getting a quick smoketest that they aren't broken horribly) and put them in alt and have websites point to them with a note. 15:02:58 resign them 15:03:37 nirik: I think that is the only viable option. but that is more up to websites and marking how they communicate it 15:03:47 marketing 15:03:53 "Due to a compose bug, this spin wasn't produced for the final release, however, the last nightly version should work fine and contains the same package set, you can find it here... " 15:03:55 or something 15:04:17 sure 15:04:36 no idea how hard it will be to have websites point elsewhere 15:05:16 yeah, we should probably open a ticket and ask them or something 15:06:02 adamw: I think mattdm should, since he is pushing for something to be done 15:06:06 robbyduck was open to the idea 15:06:19 i was using 'we' in my usual sense of 'someone who is not me' :P 15:06:26 adamw: :P 15:06:36 it's my favourite f/oss word 15:06:40 it's like a social 'sudo' 15:06:42 It will not be me, after the meeting I am going back to sleep 15:06:45 but we (releng we) needs to put them in place and sign checksums, etc. 15:07:17 nirik: sure, I can do that in 8-9 hours when I get to the office 15:07:32 ok. 15:07:45 assuming by then we know that it is something that is okay, and which exact isos to ship 15:07:52 I can probably do something if it needs to be done before then 15:09:08 * nirik too. 15:09:22 anything else, everyone happy with that? ;) 15:09:47 Proposed #agreed, the least amount of 1 off work is to ship some tested nightlies in /pub/alt/unoffical/release/24/ just the isos, signed checksums and some manifest files that list all the srpms to keep legal happy 15:11:19 #action mattdm to work with websites and marketing over communication 15:11:35 ack 15:11:40 since no one voted I will assume that everyone agrees 15:11:58 #agreed The least amount of 1 off work is to ship some tested nightlies in /pub/alt/unoffical/release/24/ just the isos, signed checksums and some manifest files that list all the srpms to keep legal happy 15:12:51 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:13:00 #info keeping the images seperate and named differently will ensure that the metadata and what is in PDC about the compose and release is correct 15:13:49 #info someone needs to step up and manage spins, update documentation, ensure that policies are properlly documented 15:14:42 well, we just need to fix docs IMHO. 15:14:55 possibly 15:15:06 new spins -> change process, fixes for spins -> "owner" of them. 15:15:18 just treat them like any other package. 15:16:16 but thats a larger topic for another day. ;) 15:16:50 we made the new spins change a few release back 15:16:59 but thats not well documented :( 15:17:02 it's no different to workstation or docker or any of the other artifacts 15:17:49 no one really owns any of the compose time built artifacts 15:17:50 nirik: +1 15:18:08 docker base image is possibly the worst owned thing 15:18:25 as technically the Base WG, that no longer exists owns it 15:18:36 so I guess modularity WG should 15:18:42 having owners might be good... 15:18:50 but the cloud WG tries to claim ownership some times 15:19:19 #action dgilmore to ensure all artifacts have known owners 15:19:52 it might also be nice to have all things have a bz component or known place to file bugs where people who care about it can see them 15:20:25 I wonder if we can get them added in pkgdb 15:20:51 possibly, or have another component... 15:21:11 Fedora -> releasecomponents 15:21:13 then ownership in bugzilla nd koji could be set, FMN can deal with sending task notifications 15:21:25 aybe 15:22:17 might be worth pondering on. 15:22:17 we just do not need a git repo for them 15:22:51 So we will need to have follow on conversations about dealing with the compose artifacts 15:23:19 dgilmore: puiterwijk and I kind of own the Docker Base image 15:23:25 dgilmore: at least in terms of Docker Hub release 15:23:43 dgilmore: https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/blob/99e785d91e5392e6e9059d8c67286a6404efab69/library/fedora#L1-L2 15:23:48 maxamillion: but that comes after the thing is built 15:23:53 correct 15:24:01 which is why I said, "kind of" 15:24:19 there is no one that actually owns defining what is in it, nor to call on when it fails to fix things 15:24:21 we direct people to the kickstart for changes, but we don't really do much ... it just kidn of exists 15:24:38 just like the Spins 15:24:56 I've chased down things to fix with it just because I normally get contacted about it since my email is on the Hub listing 15:25:09 but I'm not sure I'm the "owner" in any officially defined context 15:25:24 so maybe we should sort that at some point 15:25:31 maxamillion: well technically its the BaseWG 15:25:37 they just no longer exist 15:25:39 right 15:25:54 it is a zombie artifact 15:26:10 I just would prefer that we have a easy way to contact a group of people who care about a artifact and want to fix it/keep it working... right now we don't always, it 15:26:18 s very hit or miss finding people 15:26:37 I think anything we do to ensure that people are notified has to be self manageable and automated 15:26:48 agreed 15:27:09 which kinda falls into pkgdb 15:27:27 nirik: +1 15:27:46 but maybe we need some name spacing, or maybe we can take advantage of the work that will be needed to handle modularity 15:28:08 yeah. 15:28:24 artifacts/ instead of rpms/ 15:28:43 * nirik shrugs. not sure 15:29:08 indeed 15:29:12 so hours about up 15:29:42 #info there is much more that needs discussed. we will have to ensure conversations happen 15:29:58 #info need to find owners for all artifacts 15:30:23 #info need to make sure that owners know when things do not work in a simple automated way 15:30:27 #open floor 15:30:31 gahh 15:30:41 #topic Open Floor 15:30:56 we could probably send all day discussing how to deal with things 15:31:07 does anyone have something they want to bring up? 15:32:39 dgilmore: we definitely could :) 15:32:39 * nirik has nothing off hand. Hoping for a smooth release tomorrow. 15:33:01 nirik: indeed. 15:33:22 I am going to do the torrents when I get to the office 15:33:49 dgilmore: FYI, if you want to save some sync time, everything should be up to date on download-ib01... 15:34:56 nirik: thats where I have been pulling from for awhile now 15:35:02 ok, cool. 15:36:06 okay, if nothing else. lets wrap up 15:38:20 #endmeeting