15:00:03 <bowlofeggs> #startmeeting Bodhi stakeholders (2017-04-25)
15:00:04 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Apr 25 15:00:03 2017 UTC.  The chair is bowlofeggs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:04 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'bodhi_stakeholders_(2017-04-25)'
15:00:05 <bowlofeggs> #meetingname bodhi_stakeholders
15:00:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'bodhi_stakeholders'
15:00:06 <bowlofeggs> #topic salutations
15:00:08 <bowlofeggs> #chair acarter bowlofeggs dgilmore masta mboddu nirik pbrobinson puiterwijk trishnag
15:00:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: acarter bowlofeggs dgilmore masta mboddu nirik pbrobinson puiterwijk trishnag
15:00:27 <puiterwijk> .helo puiterwijk
15:00:42 * nirik is sort of here.
15:00:56 * sochotni waves
15:02:17 <dustymabe> .hello dustymabe
15:02:18 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dustymabe@redhat.com>
15:02:54 <masta> ahoy!
15:04:40 <bowlofeggs> #topic announcements and information
15:04:41 <bowlofeggs> #info A Bodhi 2.6.0 beta is deployed to production: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/
15:04:43 <bowlofeggs> #info Release notes available at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/docs/release_notes.html
15:04:44 <bowlofeggs> #info There are some severe problems with this release, and a 2.6.1 is planned: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/milestone/5
15:06:13 <sochotni> bowlofeggs: problems are not related to the module changes I am guessing based on the issues in the milestone?
15:06:39 <bowlofeggs> sochotni: not directly, though the changes that likely broke it were done to ease development of modules
15:07:00 <bowlofeggs> #topic multi-type support in Bodhi
15:07:01 <bowlofeggs> #info There is a milestone tracking adding multi-type support to Bodhi: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/milestone/4
15:07:30 <bowlofeggs> jcline and i have been working on bodhi's database models to make them more flexible to support more types than just RPMs
15:07:57 <bowlofeggs> we believe we have finished reworking the models that need to be reworked, and i have begun creating new module models for packages and builds
15:08:15 <bowlofeggs> that work would be getting done today were it not for the production issues, but it should get finished soon
15:08:33 <bowlofeggs> once we have that done, we should be able to get started on altering the API to support multiple types
15:08:45 <bowlofeggs> all that to say, i think we're fairly on track for fedora 27
15:09:00 <bowlofeggs> any questions or comments about multi-type support?
15:09:03 <jcline> \o/
15:09:21 <sochotni> while we are on this topic - in support of this bodhi feature I have a RFC in koji-devel around content generator support in module build service
15:09:48 <sochotni> for some reason it's not in the archives though
15:10:13 <sochotni> I am not sure if it actually got there to be honest
15:11:31 <bowlofeggs> cool
15:11:44 <bowlofeggs> ok, we can move on to issue prioritization
15:11:54 <bowlofeggs> #topic Looking forward
15:11:56 <bowlofeggs> #info Bodhi's high priority issue list https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22High+priority%22
15:11:57 <bowlofeggs> #info High priority means it's important, but not a show stopper
15:11:59 <bowlofeggs> Any filed issues that aren't on these lists that should be?
15:12:21 * dustymabe looks
15:12:29 <bowlofeggs> the issues we learned abotu today are all critical priority, so aren't on that list but are "higher than high" ☺
15:12:40 <dustymabe> which one is the one kushal is working on?
15:13:10 <dustymabe> #1182?
15:13:20 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: yesterdays is not on high prio, but critical
15:13:29 <puiterwijk> Ah, that's what you said. Sorry
15:14:20 <bowlofeggs> dustymabe: yeah we should probably alter and assign https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1182
15:16:02 <bowlofeggs> any other issues to discuss, or are their fairly triaged?
15:16:07 <bowlofeggs> *they
15:19:20 <kushal> Nothing from me :)
15:19:49 <sochotni> bowlofeggs: I am thinking of the needed pungi changes atm...
15:20:09 <bowlofeggs> cool.
15:20:13 <sochotni> though they are more of a pungi RFE, I still wonder
15:20:26 <bowlofeggs> yeah those would be good to discuss with lsedlar
15:20:28 <sochotni> we can talk about that separately
15:20:47 <bowlofeggs> i don't have any other planned topics for today, so we can move to open floor
15:20:55 <bowlofeggs> #topic Open floor
15:21:21 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: are the problems with bodhi 2.6.0 going to effect yesterday's or today's mash?
15:22:10 <bowlofeggs> mboddu: there are definitely problems in the mash, but i don' tknow what they are due to a weird error handling issue
15:22:18 <bowlofeggs> mboddu: so it's hard to say how severe they are
15:22:31 <bowlofeggs> something is defintiely not right though
15:23:11 <bowlofeggs> i've inserted a logging statement to learn more but we have to restart fedmsg-hub for that to be picked up. puiterwijk has also changed how fedmsg is initialized (which actually could have been the very issue i'm trying to catch witht he log)
15:23:22 <bowlofeggs> so the current run is expected to emit the same error messages
15:23:33 <bowlofeggs> after that we want to restart fedmsg-hub to pick up the chnages
15:23:41 <bowlofeggs> and then we want to run a short mash (like 1 package, or maybe f26)
15:23:49 <bowlofeggs> to see if it works or not
15:23:54 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: well, thats scary :)
15:23:58 <bowlofeggs> or to see if we can get that logging statement
15:24:20 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: not knowing what got effected
15:24:24 <bowlofeggs> yeah
15:24:40 <bowlofeggs> i'm going to add this log statement upstream too, so it'll stick around for any future problems
15:24:49 <bowlofeggs> we have a try/except that is eating the error message
15:25:24 <mboddu> Okay, thats all I got, we can try something today evening if the mash is completed by EOD today
15:25:27 <puiterwijk> Well, as said, given the timing of the error, I'm reasonably sure what code it is. But I'm just 99% sure, and for the last % I'd like the logs :)
15:26:23 <bowlofeggs>15:26:32 <bowlofeggs> and the logs will be good to have in the future anyway
15:26:52 <bowlofeggs> anything else for open floor, or shall we call this a short and sweet meeting?
15:26:53 <puiterwijk> Absolutely
15:28:07 <bowlofeggs> ok i will call this EOM, thanks everyone!
15:28:13 <bowlofeggs> #endmeeting