15:00:12 <bowlofeggs> #startmeeting Bodhi stakeholders (2016-09-13)
15:00:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Sep 13 15:00:12 2016 UTC.  The chair is bowlofeggs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'bodhi_stakeholders_(2016-09-13)'
15:00:20 <bowlofeggs> #meetingname bodhi_stakeholders
15:00:20 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'bodhi_stakeholders'
15:00:22 <bowlofeggs> #topic salutations
15:00:24 <bowlofeggs> #chair acarter bowlofeggs dgilmore masta mboddu nirik pbrobinson puiterwijk trishnag
15:00:24 <zodbot> Current chairs: acarter bowlofeggs dgilmore masta mboddu nirik pbrobinson puiterwijk trishnag
15:00:27 <sayan> .hello sayanchowdhury
15:00:30 <zodbot> sayan: sayanchowdhury 'Sayan Chowdhury' <sayan.chowdhury2012@gmail.com>
15:00:35 * masta waves
15:00:36 <bowlofeggs> .hello bowlofeggs
15:00:38 <trishnag> .hello trishnag
15:00:38 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <randy@electronsweatshop.com>
15:00:41 <zodbot> trishnag: trishnag 'Trishna Guha' <trishnaguha17@gmail.com>
15:00:47 <nirik> morning
15:00:47 <puiterwijk> .hello puiterwijk
15:00:48 <zodbot> puiterwijk: puiterwijk 'Patrick "マルタインアンドレアス" Uiterwijk' <puiterwijk@redhat.com>
15:00:49 * pbrobinson is lurking
15:00:51 <kushal> .hellomynameis kushal
15:00:52 <zodbot> kushal: kushal 'Kushal Das' <mail@kushaldas.in>
15:02:17 * k3rn3l3rr0r greets
15:02:31 <bowlofeggs> thanks for coming everyone! let's get this party started
15:02:42 <bowlofeggs> #topic bodhi beta deployed in stg
15:02:54 <bowlofeggs> #info please test.
15:02:56 <bowlofeggs> #info release notes at https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/924
15:02:57 <bowlofeggs> #info release planned for next week if testing goes well
15:02:59 <bowlofeggs> #info next release will be called 2.2.0 instead of 2.1.9
15:03:31 <bowlofeggs> Thanks to a lot of help from puiterwijk, i was able to get a beta for the next bodhi release deployed to https://bodhi.stg.fedoraproject.org/
15:03:33 <kushal> bowlofeggs, Can you do a blog post saying how people can test this stg bodhi? many others can join in that.
15:03:45 <tflink> have there been any changes to the bodhi client and/or the api that the client uses?
15:03:47 <vvaldez> .hello vvaldez
15:03:48 <trishnag> kushal: +1
15:03:49 <zodbot> vvaldez: vvaldez 'Vinny Valdez' <vvaldez@redhat.com>
15:03:58 <bowlofeggs> kushal: i do actually have a task warrior task to blog about this, great suggestion!
15:04:28 <nirik> moving forward it would be nice to add specific tickets addressed in each release...
15:04:34 <bowlofeggs> tflink: well it "depends"
15:04:44 <tflink> bowlofeggs: on ...
15:05:06 <bowlofeggs> tflink: so if you were using the bodhi 2 client from upstream, it did not change from 2.1.8 to this upcoming 2.2.0
15:05:25 <bowlofeggs> tflink: but, if you were using bodhi from the rpm (like probably most people do), then that is about to majorly change
15:05:26 * nirik points to http://keepachangelog.com :)
15:05:58 <bowlofeggs> tflink: rawhide and all fedora/epel builds were on bodhi 0.9 while the server was on 2.something
15:06:17 <tflink> when are you planning to change the fedora builds?
15:06:17 <bowlofeggs> tflink: i plan to update rawhide and epel 7 to bodhi 2.2.0 when it is released
15:06:33 <bowlofeggs> tflink: i do not plan to release bodhi 2 into fedoras 23-25 at all
15:06:49 <bowlofeggs> only rawhide and epel 7 (i have special permission for epel 7)
15:07:03 <tflink> so the interface will be drastically different for f26+?
15:07:12 <tflink> and different from all other fedoras?
15:07:23 <bowlofeggs> nirik: i did attempt to identify tickets in the release notes i wrote in https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/924 but many of those commits weren't connected to an issue that i could tell
15:07:35 <bowlofeggs> nirik: so i cited tickets when i found them, or just cited commits when i didn't
15:08:16 <nirik> yeah, I know right now it's hard, but moving forward as tickets are fixed the PR can/should/must also update changelog, then you don't have a scramble at the end.
15:08:23 <bowlofeggs> nirik: in the future, i will try to do a better job of keeping a changelog as we go along so i don't have to retroactively write a changelog - it took me a while to put that together!
15:08:37 <bowlofeggs> nirik: very much agreed
15:09:10 <bowlofeggs> tflink: it is different, i'm not sure i'd say "drastic" but it's not backwards compatible
15:09:17 <bowlofeggs> and yes, f26's won't match f25-
15:09:25 <tflink> bowlofeggs: where was this announced? Did I just miss it?
15:09:48 <trishnag> bowlofeggs: I will just comment on the PR with the #issue no. which I know if I find them missing.
15:10:36 <bowlofeggs> i'm not sure it was announced or not, as i am relatively new to the project, but there is a long-standing github issue that has been tracking this plan: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/142
15:10:51 <bowlofeggs> i did announce it on fedora-devel a few weeks ago as well
15:11:01 <bowlofeggs> and i also discussed it on the epel mailing list to get permission
15:11:43 <bowlofeggs> trishnag: that would be very helpful! i will try to make sure commit messages from contributors reference issue #'s when they are related to issues
15:11:52 <bowlofeggs> that way they can autoclose too, which is also nice
15:11:53 <tflink> sigh, I didn't read carefully enough
15:11:59 * tflink goes off to file urgent tickets
15:12:06 <trishnag> right :)
15:12:56 <bowlofeggs> anybody else have anything to say on this topic?
15:13:32 <bowlofeggs> i haven't heard any issues with the beta yet, so that's good i suppose ☺
15:13:52 <bowlofeggs> ok, i will move on to the next topic
15:13:56 <sayan> bowlofeggs: kudos
15:14:02 <bowlofeggs> #topic Release cadence
15:14:16 <bowlofeggs> What release cadence would work well for bodhi? proposal: one feature release
15:14:17 <bowlofeggs> per Fedora cycle, one bug release each month in between.
15:14:55 <bowlofeggs> so i'd like to do something a little more formal than i think has been done in the past, and i'd like it to work for everyone involved
15:15:07 <bowlofeggs> what do you all think?
15:15:42 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: I think we can just do feature releases when you think it's stable enough. No need to limit yourself to one per release I'd say
15:15:52 <puiterwijk> (especially if we decide mid-way that we want additional features)
15:15:55 <tflink> is staging going to start shadowing production?
15:16:05 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: I agree with puiterwijk
15:16:28 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: just release when we think the feature is stable enough
15:16:34 <bowlofeggs> ah interesting
15:17:00 <kushal> That sounds better.
15:17:10 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: so if you want a time period per release, how about a release a week? :-)
15:17:11 <bowlofeggs> tflink: i'm not sure i understand what you mean by shadowing. i'm planning to deploy to staging before production on each release, of course
15:17:40 <bowlofeggs> hahah whoah! a weekly release would be cool, but i might end up spending a high percent of my time doing release stuff, and i'm the only full time person on bodhi
15:17:43 <tflink> bowlofeggs: the problem with testing bodhi staging from our POV is that there isn't enough recent data for it to work with most of the stuff QA does wiht the bodhi interface
15:17:51 <tflink> there hasn't rather.
15:18:12 <bowlofeggs> tflink: oh, so you want to make sure we pull prod data over to staging more often?
15:18:25 <puiterwijk> tflink: I think we have a prod->stage sync script. So we can just run that more often
15:18:33 <puiterwijk> (or, at all, as the case likely is)
15:18:47 <bowlofeggs> yeah i think that's a good idea
15:18:53 <tflink> that would help if it runs often enough
15:19:09 <puiterwijk> tflink: if it's not often enough, just ask in -noc. We can sync whenever you like.
15:19:30 <puiterwijk> (or bug bowlofeggs with his preferred way of contact)
15:19:36 <bowlofeggs> puiterwijk: could we get that run after this meeting?
15:19:50 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: sure. You can run it yourself if you'd like :-)
15:19:57 <puiterwijk> Pretty sure I granted taht to you too
15:19:59 <bowlofeggs> oh i didn't know i could run it. cool!
15:20:03 <bowlofeggs> it's a playbook i assume?
15:20:06 <puiterwijk> yep
15:20:17 <bowlofeggs> excellent, i'll run it soon
15:20:28 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: playbooks/manual/staging-sync/bodhi.yml
15:20:31 * nirik notes also we need to still reinstall bodhi-backend01.stg... but that doesn't affect the web part anyhow
15:21:03 <mboddu> puiterwijk: cant we create a cron job for it, so that it will run every week or so?
15:21:23 <bowlofeggs> nirik: should we do that before i release 2.2.0, or can that be something we focus on after i get 2.2.0 out the door?
15:21:39 <puiterwijk> mboddu: well, that might kill bowlofeggs's work if he was just testing something.
15:21:41 <nirik> I can try and do it in the next few days...
15:22:04 <bowlofeggs> nirik: and this is to get it on f24, right?
15:22:19 <nirik> yeah.
15:23:20 <bowlofeggs> ok so it sounds like the desire was to make releases when they are stable and not necessarily try to time them with fedora. i assume we probably want an exception for certain times of the release cycle though?
15:23:33 <bowlofeggs> i think someone mentioned that freeze times would be a bad time to deploy bodhi releases?
15:23:46 <bowlofeggs> (mentioned in a different conversation i had in the past, not here ☺)
15:23:53 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: yep. That's why we have infra freezes
15:24:08 <puiterwijk> (during which bodhi is frozen too, obviously)
15:24:11 <mboddu> puiterwijk: hmmm, I get it
15:24:13 <bowlofeggs> cool, so avoiding infra freezes, but otherwise we are ok to release when we have something good
15:24:23 <puiterwijk> I'd say yes
15:24:34 <bowlofeggs> i personally would not like to do a weekly release - is monthly ok with everyone?
15:24:47 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: sure. Sorry, that was just a joke :)
15:24:48 <bowlofeggs> monthly would line up well with this meeting actually
15:24:50 <bowlofeggs> hahaha ok
15:25:02 <bowlofeggs> well, technically 4-weekly would line up with this meeting
15:25:18 <kushal> bowlofeggs, Do only when you think it is okay.
15:25:20 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: how about aiming for the monday before this meeting, so you can highlight some of the new features during this meeting?
15:25:26 <kushal> Means you have enough features etc.
15:25:27 <bowlofeggs> and i'm not going to try to be perfect on the word "monthly", just "approximately monthly" ☺
15:25:34 <bowlofeggs> kushal: of course!
15:25:48 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: preferably before this meeting, so that people can test it and talk about it
15:26:12 <bowlofeggs> puiterwijk: yeah that's what i was thinking - though maybe just a beta for that monday in stg, so we can chat about it, with a release the following week (like we're doing now)
15:26:19 <puiterwijk> mboddu: well, then it'd need to be at least one to two weeks before probably (so in the middle between two meetings), to give people time
15:26:20 <bowlofeggs> yeah cool
15:26:26 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: yes, that's what I meant :)
15:27:00 <bowlofeggs> excellent
15:27:22 <bowlofeggs> on the release topic, i'm a fan of semantic versioning, and i plan to try to follow that with bodhi going forward
15:27:23 * nirik is fine with whatever cadence as long as it avoids freezes.
15:27:36 <mboddu> puiterwijk: yeah, not just before this meeting but few days before the meeting(if possible)
15:27:55 <bowlofeggs> so we may see the versions revving a bunch if we do new features approximately every month (which is fine with me)
15:27:56 <puiterwijk> mboddu: oh, right. "just before" in my mind meant "a few days", like now
15:28:12 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: sure, as someone once told me: version numbers are cheap :)
15:28:25 <bowlofeggs> mboddu: perhaps i'll try to shoot for deploying a beta 1w before this meeting
15:28:35 <bowlofeggs> they sure are
15:28:51 <bowlofeggs> cool, anything else before we move on to the next topic?
15:29:10 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: cool
15:29:46 <bowlofeggs> #topic Looking forward
15:29:53 <bowlofeggs> #info These are the issues high on the Bodhi priority list https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/milestone/2
15:30:03 <bowlofeggs> are there any filed issues that aren't on this list that should be?
15:30:40 <acarter> bowlofeggs, dennis mentioned revisiting the ostree design and making sure we had support for other arches
15:31:03 <nirik> I have one issue I really want to get solved thats bodhi related...
15:31:04 <acarter> bowlofeggs, I"m not sure if there's an issue filed yet
15:31:07 <bowlofeggs> acarter: yeah he mentioned that to me as well - i actually have a special topic just for that coming up in this meeting ☺
15:31:20 <acarter> :)
15:31:25 <bowlofeggs> acarter: i dont' think there is, but i will make one
15:31:31 <bowlofeggs> nirik: what's that nirik?
15:31:48 <bowlofeggs> haha why did i mention you and then also say your name in the question?
15:32:34 <nirik> The current repodata now correctly adds weak deps since it's running on f24... but old updates that were added before that switch don't have them. So something is caching repodata and I can't figure out what it is We need to figure out where thats cached and wipe it and make it regen all the repodata so everything gets weak deps
15:33:08 <tflink> a solution to https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/794 would be appreciated before F26 branch. not the highest priority but wanted to mention it
15:33:50 <bowlofeggs> nirik: oh interesting - so would this be perhaps a one-time fix? something i could just write a script for that doesn't necessarily have to be a bodhi feature?
15:34:18 <nirik> right, it can be one time, just need figuring where it's happening. Might be in mash...
15:34:42 <masta> maybe change the createrepo invocation in mash to not do the updates ?
15:34:58 <bowlofeggs> nirik: cool. would you mind filing a github issue on it and assinging it to that 2.2 milestone with "critical" tag?
15:35:02 <masta> I got one related to that, actually
15:35:27 <nirik> I can
15:35:55 <nirik> it's more of a 'figure out where this is happening' so we can manually override it.
15:36:30 <masta> the nfs file locks issue. I suspect is coming from when mash runs createrepo, and the sqlite databases are generated. I think a work-around would be to generate the repo metadata in /tmp, and them move over to the NFSv4 so there is no filelocking issue
15:37:23 <bowlofeggs> tflink: i'm not sure i can promise getting that before f26 given the list of features i also need to do in that timeframe, but i'm happy to mark that issue as high priority
15:37:39 <bowlofeggs> nirik: cool, i'll see if i can figure it out
15:38:04 <tflink> bowlofeggs: if that's all that can be done, we'll figure something out on our end again
15:38:17 <nirik> masta: yeah, I think it's a race condition. It only happens on epel (which are smaller)
15:38:30 <masta> nirik, sry, probably a mash bug not a bodhi2... but just figured I'd mention it
15:38:47 <bowlofeggs> tflink: i'm only one full time person on a pretty big project that lots of people want stuff from, so all i can do is work on a prioritized list - time frames are going to be tough for me to commit to, unfortunately
15:39:06 <tflink> bowlofeggs: you're preaching to the choir here :)
15:40:02 <bowlofeggs> masta: so for the file locks, i had been thinking that the koji signed repos would be a good fix. however, that tmp idea sounds "easy" - maybe we could get that in as a short term fix? want to mention that on the issue?
15:40:22 <masta> bowlofeggs, sure
15:40:33 <bowlofeggs> koji signed repos sound like they will solve a variety of issues, but it is also not a quick change of course
15:40:50 <bowlofeggs> so i'm happy to duct tape when we have ideas like that int he meantime
15:41:46 <bowlofeggs> one issue i want to solve in the short term is that repometadata one - two people on github said they wanted to work on it, but i haven't seen anything from them so i might just do it
15:41:54 <bowlofeggs> should be a quick win
15:42:12 <bowlofeggs> anything else that you don't see on that list that should be?
15:43:05 * k3rn3l3rr0r pushed a commit for the repometadata for overview
15:43:29 <nirik> which is the repometadata issue?
15:43:36 <bowlofeggs> k3rn3l3rr0r: oh very nice
15:43:50 <trishnag> nirik: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/908
15:45:24 <nirik> ah, ok
15:45:41 <bowlofeggs> nirik: as i understand it, there is already a releng script to work around the problem so it's not necessarily truly a super important issue, but it also sounded realyl easy to fix so i figured it was good to do in the name of robustness
15:46:11 <bowlofeggs> ok, let's move on to the next topic so we have time for open floor too
15:46:21 <bowlofeggs> #topic how bodhi makes and manages ostrees
15:46:28 <bowlofeggs> dgilmore wanted us to chat about this
15:46:51 <bowlofeggs> he brought up that ostrees are only made for x86_64, because they are made by bodhi and bodhi runs on that arch
15:47:24 <bowlofeggs> so we need a way to make ostrees for other arches
15:47:34 <bowlofeggs> should we get koji to do this for us?
15:47:45 <masta> can it work in a runroot plugin?
15:48:03 <bowlofeggs> i'm not familiar with runroot - can you elaborate?
15:48:37 <masta> well it's a way for koji to run arbitrary tasks on buildere/compose hosts outside of a mock chroot
15:48:51 <puiterwijk> I think we do it in runroot for rawhide/f25.
15:48:56 <bowlofeggs> oh interesting, that sounds useful
15:49:03 <puiterwijk> With pungi, if I recall correctly from what Dennis told me the other day
15:49:05 <bowlofeggs> puiterwijk: oh really?
15:49:26 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: yes, I was told that we do that now for rawhide, and bodhi only does the updates for existing trees, or something liuke that
15:49:28 <bowlofeggs> puiterwijk: so if that's so, should we just start doing that for f23/24, or should we just wait for f25 to have multi arch?
15:49:50 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: I would say we just move everything to koji, but I'm not sure what's stopping us there
15:50:00 <puiterwijk> I was going to discuss that with Dennis when he would get around :)
15:50:03 <bowlofeggs> yeah i don't know either
15:50:25 <bowlofeggs> we could schedule a special topic meeting just to talk about this some more so we can chat with dgilmore about it
15:50:39 <bowlofeggs> why don't we do that? we only have 10 min left here anyway
15:50:49 <puiterwijk> Sounds good
15:51:08 <masta> yeap
15:51:08 <bowlofeggs> whoever would like to be invited to that, just PM me your e-mail address and i'll let you know. we'll just do it on IRC too
15:51:24 <bowlofeggs> i'll throw it on the infra calendar too
15:51:51 <bowlofeggs> ok the last topic i had was:
15:51:56 <bowlofeggs> #topic Multi-type support
15:52:18 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: multi-type?
15:52:38 <bowlofeggs> It's been talked about a lot, but i don't think any progress has been made - we want bodhi to know about other types - docker, ostrees, and perhaps mroe later
15:53:09 <bowlofeggs> more than just mashing for ostrees, we'd like the updates to be able to track them i think
15:53:22 <bowlofeggs> and of course, docker images too
15:53:24 <masta> huh?
15:53:32 <puiterwijk> I didn't know we were doing multiple things for ostree. I thought only docker for now
15:53:48 <bowlofeggs> puiterwijk: i could be wildly mistaken
15:54:02 <bowlofeggs> aiui, docker is planned to be the first next-type
15:54:12 <bowlofeggs> i could just be confused about ostrees
15:54:58 <bowlofeggs> anyways, i don't have much to say other than that adding docker images is high on my priority list for new bodhi features
15:55:15 <bowlofeggs> i probably just should have made that an #info instead of a #topic
15:55:16 <bowlofeggs>15:55:17 <trishnag> puiterwijk: bowlofeggs https://paste.fedoraproject.org/409769/49771147/
15:55:29 <trishnag> So looks like not only docker.
15:55:50 <bowlofeggs> yeah that was a document that lmacken wrote for us
15:55:56 <trishnag> yup
15:56:18 <bowlofeggs> anyways, with only 4 min left, let's do open floor
15:56:23 <bowlofeggs> #topic Open floor
15:56:28 <puiterwijk> We don't need to solve everything today :)
15:56:46 <bowlofeggs> puiterwijk: i sure hope not, there's so much time, so little to do
15:56:50 <bowlofeggs> wait, strike that, reverse it
15:56:59 <kushal> bowlofeggs, btw, do you know where do we store/publish the logs of ostree composes?
15:57:00 <puiterwijk> Heh :)
15:57:00 <kushal> As that happens in bodhi.
15:57:03 <trishnag> hehe
15:57:05 <kushal> bowlofeggs, How do you like bodhi? :)
15:57:23 <bowlofeggs> kushal: i do not know where we do that
15:57:29 <bowlofeggs> does anyone else know?
15:57:32 <puiterwijk> kushal: I can give you that info later, I need to quickly look it up
15:57:41 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: yes, I do, when I get a few to look it up
15:57:46 <bowlofeggs> cool
15:58:05 <masta> kushal, the systemd journal I believe is where bodhi2 logs go.
15:58:38 <bowlofeggs> kushal: i like working on bodhi so far. it's a nice project for me i think
15:59:01 <mboddu> masta: but its very hard to use that logs, I would like to know if there is any other way
15:59:35 <masta> mboddu, agreed
15:59:39 <bowlofeggs> anythign else? <60s ☺
15:59:43 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: http://giphy.com/gifs/life-seth-rogen-this-is-the-end-Lvand4cUuA6xG
16:00:03 <bowlofeggs> mboddu: hahah yes that is what it is like ☺
16:00:17 <bowlofeggs> thanks for attending everyone!
16:00:17 <kushal> masta, that means we can not read that :)
16:00:23 <bowlofeggs> i hope it was helpful for you all
16:00:26 <bowlofeggs> it was for me!
16:00:29 <bowlofeggs> #endmeeting