12:00:25 #startmeeting Gluster community weekly meeting 12:00:25 Meeting started Wed Jan 13 12:00:25 2016 UTC. The chair is atinm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:00:25 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 12:00:25 The meeting name has been set to 'gluster_community_weekly_meeting' 12:00:33 Greetings everyone 12:00:44 Its time for this week's community meeting 12:00:58 #info agenda is right here at https://public.pad.fsfe.org/p/gluster-community-meetings 12:01:16 #topic roll call 12:01:28 Who all do we have here today? 12:02:00 * obnox waves 12:02:09 * obnox kinda here.. :-) 12:02:21 * jdarcy is 12:02:31 Welcome obnox, jdarcy 12:03:00 Lets wait for couple of minutes to get into the real action :) 12:03:24 Appreciate if people can vote their presence 12:03:49 There is no point of having a hour long community meeting with three people :/ 12:04:08 * ndevos _o/ 12:04:14 4 12:04:22 ndevos: \o/ 12:04:29 Still a less number to me :( 12:04:48 atinm: absolutely, especially if one (me) is not to be counted fully 12:04:56 * raghug here 12:04:56 (when it comes to core gluster business) 12:05:12 5 12:05:51 jdarcy, ndevos, obnox, raghug : Should we really continue with this number? 12:06:17 * sankarshan_ lurks 12:06:19 I'd be OK with collecting AI status via email/etherpad instead. 12:06:45 Allright 12:06:59 lets make it a very short then 12:07:08 #topic AIs from last meeting 12:07:29 ndevos, do you have any updates on the reminder mail on maintainer list about active backports? 12:07:55 ndevos, IIRC I've not seen it till now 12:08:29 ndevos, I take it as No 12:08:33 #action ndevos to send out a reminder to the maintainers about more actively enforcing backports of bugfixes (this year) 12:08:40 rastar and msvbhat to consolidate and publish testing matrix on gluster.org. amye can help post Jan 1. 12:08:59 rastar, msvbhat : any updates from amye ? 12:09:31 * ndevos just got a call, sorry 12:09:41 I am skipping the AIs where the representatives are not in for today 12:09:59 ndevos, no issues, I've carried it forward 12:10:08 #action kshlm & csim to set up faux/pseudo user email for gerrit, bugzilla, github (after csim comes back on 4th Jan) 12:10:17 #action rastar and msvbhat to consolidate and publish testing matrix on gluster.org. amye can help post Jan 1 12:10:34 well, i am back :) 12:10:57 #action kkeithley to send a mail about using sanity checker tools in the codebase 12:11:15 csim, ahh!! so you have any updates on that AI? 12:11:33 * anoopcs arrives late. 12:11:40 #action kshlm to write up a README for glusterfs-specs 12:11:51 Oh, oh, I get one! 12:12:08 atinm: I do not remember being contacted for it, but maybe I forgot 12:12:10 I wrote up something, submitted it as a patch, I think there's general agreement. Just needs to be merged. 12:12:54 csim, no issues, I've carried it forward, we could check the status on next week then 12:13:01 yeah, I know Humble has merge powers, but he seems to be ignoring irc (and isnt in this channel0 12:13:57 Humble is out for some visa work 12:13:59 OK, I'll bug him as well. 12:14:09 So moving to next one 12:14:15 #link http://review.gluster.org/13187 12:15:10 #topic GlusterFS 3.7 12:15:33 pranithk : are you around? 12:16:08 Right time to join pranithk 12:16:17 We were asking about 3.7 updates 12:16:40 Any plans for the next release pranithk ? 12:16:41 atinm: 3.7.7. is held on NetBSD regressions for the patches that need to be merged. 12:17:11 #info 3.7.7. is held on NetBSD regressions for the patches that need to be merged 12:17:22 pranithk, so do you have any deadlines in your mind? 12:17:54 atinm: if netbsd regressions pass in the next hour I will release in 2 hours. So as soon as it completes I am ready to release it. 12:18:04 pranithk, :) 12:18:32 #info 3.7.7 will be release once all the blocker patches pass NetBSD regression runs and are merged 12:18:51 pranithk, anything else you want to share? 12:18:57 atinm: nope 12:19:03 pranithk, thanks 12:19:06 Moving on 12:19:38 #topic GlusterFS 3.6 12:20:03 #info 3.6.8 is been released, however the official announcement hasn't happened yet I believe 12:20:13 So I am marking an AI on kshlm 12:20:26 #action kshlm to announce the availability of 3.6.8 12:20:39 Any other points on 3.6 front? 12:21:06 I take it as 'No' and moving on 12:21:08 atinm: nope. I am planning to make 3.6.9 on 20th Jan 12:21:30 #info 3.6.9 is planned on 20th Jan 2016 12:21:37 #topic GlusterFS 3.5 12:21:52 ndevos, time for you to speak :) 12:22:10 was planning to do a release this weekend... 12:22:25 but the not starting of regression tests kept me busy :-/ 12:22:53 there are some new patches (all related to quota) sent, maybe I include those as well 12:23:10 ndevos, so end of this week? 12:23:12 that would make 3 patches in total for the next release, maybe this week 12:23:40 ndevos, is the next version 3.5.8? 12:23:43 schedule says "around the 10th of each month", this week counts as "around" 12:24:03 yes, I think 3.5.8, but would need to check to be sure 12:24:24 #info 3.5.8 will be released by end of this week 12:24:28 3.5.8 it is 12:24:34 cool 12:24:46 ndevos, anything else on 3.5? 12:24:50 nope 12:25:04 ndevos, thanks for the updates 12:25:06 Moving on 12:25:14 #topic GlusterFS 4.0 12:25:23 jdarcy, your turn? 12:25:35 I'd add about GD2 later on 12:25:35 OK... 12:25:58 Still working on reconciliation. Decided to scrap the old code, after spending days on it. :( 12:26:14 Haven't heard much from DHT-land lately. 12:26:58 One idea has been discussed, of making NetBSD/FreeBSD support official 4.0 features. 12:27:03 do we have Shyam or Venky around? 12:27:36 Apparently we have some (funded!) FreeBSD folks who might be able to drive that. 12:27:57 excellent news! 12:28:11 that sounds great, Manu could use some assistence :) 12:28:25 \o/ 12:28:30 funded by whom ? 12:29:15 Their company, iX Systems I think. 12:29:48 there was an email in december from them, they were trying to get in touch about 'offical' FreeBSD support 12:30:38 I am extracting some data from the trello board (would be visible publicly shortly) for DHT2 ongoing work 12:31:12 Next AI? 12:31:14 DHT2 is currently working on the POC for different fops like readv, (f)sync, (f)truncate, statfs, xattrs etc 12:31:23 Ah, OK. 12:31:30 ndevos: we have 1 single freebsd slaves for now :/ 12:31:47 From GlusterD 2.0 side we have started working on etcd bootstrapping 12:32:26 kshlm is still focusing on stabilizing the txn framework 12:32:31 csim: it is only used for (short) smoke tests now, and the email (to the -devel list?) mentioned that they might be able to help out with testing and things - lets see where it goes 12:32:35 Yay etcd bootstrapping. 12:33:00 What should we do with the plugin proposal? Fold it into the GlusterD2 doc (where?) or publish separately? 12:33:05 jdarcy, how about the plugin proposal? Are you going to open it up to the community? 12:33:15 jdarcy, :) 12:33:29 jdarcy, Do you want to put it in our design wiki? 12:33:54 jdarcy, as thats the place holder for all our design docs as of now and later on we can move all of them to gluster-specs 12:34:01 There's a design wiki? 12:34:08 jdarcy, yes 12:34:24 oh, where is that? 12:34:26 jdarcy, https://github.com/gluster/glusterd2/wiki/Design 12:35:26 but, but, but, gluster-specs has more eyes on it than a wiki nobody gets notifications about? 12:36:00 ndevos, I agree 12:36:07 it would really be nice to all features to follow the same workflow... 12:36:20 ndevos, as I said we would need to move it to spec 12:36:39 ndevos, let me try this out, in another week's time let me move them to spec 12:37:01 #action atinm to move all the design docs of GD2 to glusterfs-specs 12:37:07 :) 12:37:09 atinm: what is blocking from getting it done before next meeting? 12:38:05 ndevos, 1 more week could also be before next week's meeting :) 12:38:28 We also do have a 4.0 roadmap page which is live now 12:38:34 #info 4.0 roadmap page :https://www.gluster.org/community/roadmap/4.0/ 12:39:00 atinm: "could", but maybe you can #action it for yourself or one of the other GD2 devs? 12:39:07 aravindavk, Do you want to update anything on the eventing side? 12:39:40 design discussion is in progress. Shyam and Luis provided inputs for design. Working on it 12:39:48 aravindavk, cool 12:40:05 ndevos, I will ensure that you wouldn't complaint in next week's meeting :D 12:40:22 atinm: ok, thank you :) 12:40:41 I believe that ends all of our 4.0 discussions 12:40:46 jdarcy, anything to add? 12:41:05 Nope. 12:41:22 #topic Open Floor 12:41:40 Do we have anything to discuss here? 12:41:59 maybe about the current failing of regression tests? 12:42:13 I'd like to remind all our developers about the change in regression trigger 12:42:46 Good idea. 12:42:52 Please refer to http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2016-January/047752.html 12:43:23 Do we have a conclusion on the current NetBSD regressions? 12:43:51 as I have written in my mail, I think it is really really sad, if automatic regressions are disabled 12:43:58 we also have failing tests due to an improvement in the regression job, if tests fail with a Java stack trace, check http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.gluster.infra/775 12:44:54 ndevos, Also I have seeing jobs getting aborted very frequently, slaves are getting offline in between 12:45:07 rjoseph: That's part of the rationale for making NetBSD a 4.0 feature. Until then, regressions are run *post* merge, and issues fixed on a best-effort or fixed-resource basis. 12:45:08 s/have/have been 12:45:22 my comment was regarding the regression trigger 12:45:25 obnox: by automatic do you mean trigger on patch update? 12:45:30 I've aborted a lot of NetBSD runs that were hung for 12+ hours. 12:45:42 rastar: yes, my ideal workflow would be this: 12:45:47 Not today, but a bunch last week. 12:45:56 jdarcy, rastar changed it in a way that no job should wait for more than 5 hours 12:46:13 jdarcy: that's great 12:46:15 I think we are discussing too many things at one go 12:46:19 jdarcy: atinm there is timeout enabled for runs300 mins 12:46:19 atinm: Do we have a way to track how often that "kill switch" triggers? 12:46:46 obnox: I'm a little sad about that too, but I hope at least a +1 code-review from anyone can get the tests started 12:47:01 rastar: dev commits patch -- some or all tests are run automatically -- only if tests pass reviewers start reviewing -- if reviews are granted then it can be mergede, but this would force rebase (ffw) and re-run of a regression test if a rebase was necessary 12:47:16 the ugly solution to +1 verify what people are doing now, defeats the change 12:47:23 jdarcy, not that I am aware of 12:48:39 ndevos, but don't you think verified +1 means that patch has been verified and tested by the author and that should give some confidence to the reviewers? 12:49:11 ndevos, as I mentioned in my reply that I was in favour of triggering regression on a +1, but I am just mapping it with a +1 verified, am I wrong? 12:49:11 atinm: right, but 'some confidence' is poor compared to full passed regression runs or even build and smoke 12:49:22 atinm: not if developers know it will trigger a regression test 12:49:25 if the regression is automatically triggered after +1 verify then the reviewer should start review after the regression result. 12:49:30 obnox, on +1 verified the regression is run 12:49:45 atinm: that does not seem to make a lot of sense to me 12:50:02 Maybe we need +1/+2 Verify. 12:50:04 verified sounds kind of synonymous to regressions have been run 12:50:05 atinm: it also makes it impossible to see in the listing-view if regressions did a +1, or if it was the patch author 12:50:51 ndevos, no that's not right 12:51:01 I would like to have different labels for different tests, Smoke=+1, NetBSD=+1, Linux=+1 etc.. 12:51:04 obnox: my version of workflow 12:51:15 ndevos, if its a regression vote it will be +1ed by either Gluster or NetBSD build system 12:51:31 obnox: dev sends patch, immedietely sets +1 verified, regressions pass, reviewers review, patch is merged 12:51:42 ndevos, if its by something else then that name would be there 12:51:56 atinm: yes, but how do you list patches that have been +1'd by regression tests? I need to open each change before I can see those details 12:52:10 obnox: even in this workflow, reviewers review only after full confidence of regressions being complete 12:52:15 rastar: fine. so with verify+1 you have the 'old' mode. that is good 12:52:22 obnox: yes 12:52:25 Definitely, something that's visible in a listing is preferable to something that's only visible in the per-patch view. 12:52:31 and omitting +1 you can send WIP patches or so? 12:53:06 rastar: but then, the final merge happens after possible rebase and regression-re-run ? 12:53:30 ndevos, I never thought about this point 12:53:35 a Gerrit admin should be able to create additional labels, and users should only be able to set Verified, where as automated tests can then set their own label 12:53:38 ndevos, that's valid 12:53:51 obnox: yes for ommiting +1 for WIP 12:54:11 rastar: and merge only with rebase and (if it WAS rebased) a new regression run? 12:54:11 obnox: tests just before merge is not possible without zuul 12:54:23 rastar: zuul ? 12:54:45 obnox: yes that is gate keeping tool for merging patches 12:55:04 hm 12:55:10 obnox: http://docs.openstack.org/infra/zuul/ 12:55:28 obnox: specifically written by openstack guys when they had same problem as ours 12:55:31 well, samba has the home-grown autobuild. that also does it 12:55:38 and found gerrit and jenkins insufficient 12:55:38 Since we're almost out of time, perhaps we need to move this back to email. 12:55:45 rastar, but ndevos brings a valid point in terms of listing down the patches which has been +1'd by regressions 12:55:45 rastar: After each patch update will the regression retrigger? Currently all acks go away after patch update 12:55:48 we _only_ have autbuild and not the whole rest 12:56:17 we are running out of time 12:56:32 Can we continue this discussion on the mail thread? 12:56:35 samba also found gerrit insufficient. for this reason and because it can't properly handle patch_sets_m but that is another story 12:56:40 ndevos: atinm this works? status:open reviewer:"Gluster Build System " 12:56:41 yeah mail thread 12:56:45 atinm: ^^ 12:56:55 ok, mail thread 12:57:02 atinm: but sometimes such discussion is faster 12:57:14 (than reading whole novels in mail threads :-) 12:57:26 rastar: doenst work when verified=-1 is set, or someone else did a verified=+1 12:57:32 * rjoseph agree with obnox 12:57:52 * obnox running for next meeting 12:57:57 * obnox waves 12:58:01 ndevos: ok will look into it 12:58:09 lets discuss in mail 12:58:15 rastar, thanks 12:58:17 * rastar should go for next meeting too 12:58:28 rastar: having different labels for different tests will also prevent any tests from overwriting results of other tests 12:58:46 ndevos: I agree, kshlm wanted to try that out 12:58:46 rastar: will you start an email about the label things? 12:58:53 ndevos: sure 12:58:56 ndevos: I would like to pursue that idea. Or, more precisely, I'd like someone to. ;) 12:59:02 rastar: thanks! 12:59:18 jdarcy: we'll need to poke kshlm a little for that, I think :) 13:00:22 Allright guys, that brings to the end of today's meeting and it was quite a productive one especially at the end, thanks all for joining, will see you next week at same time 13:00:44 #endmeeting