15:01:33 #startmeeting RDO meeting - 2017-09-20 15:01:33 Meeting started Wed Sep 20 15:01:33 2017 UTC. The chair is jruzicka. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:01:33 The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting_-_2017-09-20' 15:01:33 Meeting started Wed Sep 20 15:01:33 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jruzicka. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:34 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:01:36 The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting___2017_09_20' 15:01:49 o/ 15:01:57 o/ 15:02:05 #topic Hello #rdo o/ 15:02:06 o/ 15:02:09 o/ 15:02:11 o/ 15:02:41 o/ 15:02:57 #chair rbowen trown PagliaccisCloud flepied amoralej jatanmalde 15:02:57 Current chairs: PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied jatanmalde jruzicka rbowen trown 15:02:58 Current chairs: PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied jatanmalde jruzicka rbowen trown 15:03:28 o/ 15:04:05 * Duck o/ 15:04:22 o/ 15:04:37 o/ 15:06:17 #chair Duck myoung jschlueter 15:06:17 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen trown 15:06:19 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen trown 15:06:35 #topic Infrastructure topics 15:06:39 Duck, Quack 15:07:32 I did not have time to put them yet :-) 15:07:36 Duck asked that he be first on the agenda for Infra things, so that he can duck out for the remainder of the meeting. 15:07:41 I didn't actually ask if there were any issues. 15:07:43 jruzicka: i demand a chair 15:07:50 Just that we need a standing Infra item, first thing on the agenda. 15:07:54 That's why that was there. 15:08:08 So, next week ... :-) 15:08:11 #chair snecklifter 15:08:11 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen snecklifter trown 15:08:12 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen snecklifter trown 15:08:19 ta 15:08:24 if there's a proficient Python guy here, helping fix the nasty Mailman3 bug could help 15:08:56 Jeremy Liu proposed openstack/karborclient-distgit rpm-master: Initial import of spec file https://review.rdoproject.org/r/8675 15:09:14 also I suggested using the bugzilla tracker Rich kindly opened to follow big tasks projects 15:09:31 but more later yes 15:09:40 rbowen, which bz is that? 15:09:51 gfidente, fultonj: you want to get line item on here for ceph-ansible and ceph and tripleo integration ci jobs? 15:10:09 apevec: The only ticket in that bucket is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487324 15:10:10 bugzilla.redhat.com bug 1487324 in Infrastructure "Move mailing lists from @redhat.com to @lists.rdoproject.org" [Unspecified,Assigned] - Assigned to duck 15:10:15 which may very well be the wrong ticket tracker. 15:10:19 This is an open question. 15:10:23 for eg -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487324 15:10:42 the ticket for MM3 is in there 15:10:59 Duck, is there a bounty on it? :) 15:11:03 the rest is Ansible rules and how all the so many extra yum repo broke the world 15:11:19 jruzicka: NO, just the FUN and GLORY :-) 15:11:37 jschlueter yes but looks a bit early on 15:11:56 so any help is appreciated 15:12:00 Jeremy Liu proposed openstack/karbor-distgit rpm-master: Initial import of spec file https://review.rdoproject.org/r/8671 15:12:12 or just discussing the possible solutions 15:12:26 I'm not a BOFH so please give your opinion 15:12:55 (solutions for coordinating, and solutions for the MM3 problems too) 15:13:11 well, "bug loosing mails" sounds serious. 15:13:16 dmsimard: :-))) 15:13:54 fortunately oVirt lost mostly automated mails noone cares, but a handful were real ones 15:14:33 #chair gfidente 15:14:33 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied gfidente jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen snecklifter trown 15:14:34 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied gfidente jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen snecklifter trown 15:14:58 so it's all for today on my side. do not hesitate pinging me :-) 15:15:07 any other infra topics ? 15:15:25 jruzicka: agenda item for meeting ... /me doesn't have link to etherpad close at hand ... "ceph/ceph-ansible and tripleo integration" 15:15:31 ktdreyer: ^ 15:15:44 #chair fultonj 15:15:44 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied fultonj gfidente jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen snecklifter trown 15:15:45 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej flepied fultonj gfidente jatanmalde jruzicka jschlueter myoung rbowen snecklifter trown 15:15:47 RDO-Meeting pad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/RDO-Meeting 15:15:47 let me introduce a little the issue that we have to see if there are ideas 15:16:10 basically we consume ceph-ansible builds in tripleo to deploy ceph via tripleo 15:16:15 jschlueter, added 15:16:24 jruzicka: thanks! 15:16:25 let us proceed, then 15:16:32 but we don't have jobs gating ceph-ansible commits with a full tripleo run to make sure they don't break 15:16:41 #topic rdopkg Release bumping support 15:16:45 and we probably won't have 15:17:15 This this is about bumping Release: in .spec files 15:17:20 Currently: last numeric part of the Release string is bumped, i.e. 0.1.rc1 -> 0.2.rc1 15:17:29 Mike Burns created rdoinfo master: bump newton default for python-networking-cisco https://review.rdoproject.org/r/9698 15:17:36 DLRN support requested: https://github.com/softwarefactory-project/rdopkg/issues/77 15:17:45 jruzicka: you skipped gfidente 15:18:03 or did gfidente skip jruzicka ... i am a bit lost 15:18:12 o/ 15:18:13 0.20160817045049.d668fcd%{?dist} -> 0.20160817045049.d668fcd.1%{?dist} (bump last part or add .1 if not numeric) 15:18:19 * jruzicka will finish the dump :) 15:18:24 I think we're just out of order on the agenda. 15:18:35 how? 15:18:47 Infrastructure topics were closed, or no? 15:18:57 shall I undo? 15:19:07 The ceph item was at the end. of the list. Perhaps I'm just confused. 15:19:19 gfidente: I really don't know anything about this, but it sounds like adding a CI job (and be sure to have the resources, because I guess it's not a tiny build) 15:19:26 ya lets finish this topic, then continue with ceph-ansible later 15:19:36 ok 15:19:45 yup it's down in the agenda 15:19:53 sorry guys I assumed we were then when jschlueter mentioned the new agenda topic 15:20:04 gfidente, np np ;) 15:20:10 daijoubu 15:20:23 so release string bumping 15:20:54 So in short, DLRN uses Release format which requires a special handling so I need to detect it in rdopkg and treat separately 15:21:12 since I'm doing that, it's good time to research Release: conventions in the wild and support as much of them as possible 15:21:21 jruzicka: support for predictable short hashes was merged yesterday: https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/9721 15:21:30 jpena++ 15:21:31 jruzicka: Karma for jpena changed to 4 (for the f26 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:21:46 so now we can really use the regexp to detect DLRN specs 15:21:52 so it's pretty easy to detect DLRN spec and not trigger special behavior when it shouldn't 15:21:56 yes 15:22:10 dlrn is currently 0.timestamp.hash 15:22:15 jruzicka: I proposed a number of them that I'm familar with in patch for rdopkg 15:22:25 but that is not fully following Fedora pre-release convention 15:22:28 jruzicka, we also use pre and post release NVRs 15:22:35 as defined in fedora 15:22:49 oh jschlueter is one steap ahead :) 15:23:03 fedora-compliant it would be 0.N.timestamp.whatever 15:23:03 and git snapshots based 15:23:09 https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/9636/ 15:23:27 apevec, were N gets bumped? 15:23:47 that's what rdopkg or packager would bump 15:23:48 jschlueter, nice, thanks :) 15:24:06 https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/9724 has some of the good behavior from current release 15:24:28 so dlrn would need to be changed to e.g. 0.1.timestamp.hash 15:24:43 but need to carefuly check upgrade implications 15:24:48 jschlueter++ 15:25:03 since we want to ensure you can always upgrade trunk -> next stable build 15:25:05 jschlueter, amazing, that's gotta make it much harder to break everything as I change this :) 15:25:29 jruzicka: yep exactly! 15:25:49 apevec, indeed, I'd rather do this properly as opposed to series of fixes that each introduces new unexpected implications :) 15:26:17 behave scenarios make it easy to define what things should like like and how it should behave 15:27:06 ight? it's working :) I suggest looking at this nice feature file by jschlueter which clearly definec what to expect from rdopkg: 15:27:20 https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/9724/1/features/fix.feature 15:27:34 jruzicka, what I'm proposing would require changes in dlrn, so need to be extra careful not to break e.g. CI use cases 15:27:44 jruzicka: all of those are current behavior and acceptable by me for how rdopkg works 15:28:16 apevec, changing dlrn to standard format would be best 15:28:47 apevec: wouldn't 0.timestamp.hash.1 work better? It might not be fedora-compliant, but 0.1.timestamp will break upgrades (0.2017xxx is always higher than 0.1) 15:29:37 jpena, yes, it would require one-time breaking 15:29:53 so doing it now at the beginning of cycle would be best 15:30:27 yeah break now and I don't have to support obsolete (current) behavior in rdopkg :) 15:30:33 now it's beginning for pike but not for the rest and i guess we'll apply it for all releases, right? 15:30:46 s/pike/queens/ 15:31:29 so we'll breack migrations from trunk to newer trunk in the same release 15:31:32 having compatible releases with Fedora will save huge amount of time and pain I'm sure 15:32:30 yes, sounds as the best option but i'm just thinking in minimize impact 15:33:03 crazy idea... maybe 0.3.timestamp.hash ? 15:33:31 how that helps? 15:33:46 no, 3 < 2017... 15:33:58 quack? 15:34:13 mmm 15:34:14 true 15:34:35 I was thinking about extracting all or some .spec files from Fedora pkgs and analyzing foudn Releases... maybe that's overkill, what do you think? 15:34:56 epoch? 15:35:05 making nvr format configurable per-worker 15:35:24 we could change it in queens and keep as-is in previous releases? 15:35:27 oh epoch would work but it's confusing. 15:35:38 epoch could solve this but has its cost 15:35:44 jruzicka: I can send you NVR's for OSP 15:35:53 then you have to add %{epoch} _everywhere_ 15:35:59 and cherry-pick interesting cases into rdopkg 15:36:00 jschlueter, cool please do! 15:36:02 sure, but you could be sure to have the target version and migration are sure to work 15:36:14 but dlrn builds don't have to be upgradable across the board 15:36:22 jschlueter, that and Fedora ones could be enought to start with... 15:36:31 we'd need to update Requires to epoch also 15:36:47 #action jruzicka to research Release formats in the wilds 15:36:48 in all specs 15:36:50 amoralej, let's explore per-worker idea 15:38:02 I'm glad I raised awarenes about this. Usually some extra special cases and detections in rdopkg mean some inconsistency/irregularity and solving this one will make things easier. 15:38:58 #action everyone to think about best Trunk Release format 15:39:28 let's discuss this again in the future and move on with the meeting 15:39:31 #action jschlueter to collect interesting OSP NVR's to jruzicka and pick out interesting cases 15:39:35 * jschlueter nods 15:40:24 I'll consider blogging about it ;) 15:40:38 #topic PTG interviews starting to appear here: http://youtube.com/RDOCommunity 15:41:01 That's pretty much the whole topic. 15:41:01 -dances- 15:41:08 Great interviews there. Please help promote 15:41:10 EOL 15:41:18 btw i'm sorry i missed you all at ptg. for some reason it got in my mind that you would all be with OoO 15:41:20 I had 23 interviews. I have published 8 so far. 15:41:21 PagliaccisCloud -dancing- is the whole topic? OK. 15:41:32 * jruzicka winks 15:42:38 #topic Test day schedule for Queens 15:42:49 rbowen, yours as well I think? 15:43:08 Ah. Yes. Just a heads up that I'll be doing the Queens test day schedule soon. 15:43:21 And there's always date conflicts in the second release of a year. 15:43:41 So I'll hopefully propose a schedule soon, so that people can tell me what dates everything conflicts with. 15:43:54 default is upstream milestone + 1 week 15:43:55 rbowen++ 15:43:55 gfidente: Karma for rcb changed to 2 (for the f26 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:43:56 But also we need to figure out how to better engage people on test day, given that so much of hte testing is automated. 15:44:18 We need to find ways to engage operators, rather than just ourselves and the usual suspects. 15:44:29 rbowen: one thing would be good to include installation docs for projects currently all installation guides for each component moved to their project so may include a section 15:44:35 So advance promotion is part of that. 15:44:40 rbowen: do we want to consider closer to trailing release (so that tripleo is stable for the milestone and testday)? 15:44:43 testing each component from those docs 15:44:46 We also talked about having a Trystack-like thingy where people can do testing. 15:45:00 jschlueter: That's certainly a good idea. 15:45:24 Is there a chance that we could have a public deployment of each milestone where people can run specific manual testing scenarios? 15:45:42 too automated to attract operators? :D 15:45:48 unless we can push on tripleo and other trailing release components to be as much feature complete by Milestone and only have blockers and specific integration issues to deal with in trailing release window 15:46:15 chandankumar: Yeh, that's a good idea also. 15:47:14 Unfortunately, I've been traveling and have dropped a number of tasks along the way. So I'll try to put together some of these suggestions on the mailing list in the coming day or two. 15:47:27 having a public deployment that gets reborn every ay 2 hours would be great, just for the test day 15:47:41 Yes, so that it's harder to abuse. 15:48:32 But that will involve actually having someone tasked to make that happen, as I am sure it's not trivial. 15:48:35 public deployment good idea but need good coordination for rebuilding ... 15:48:49 Yep 15:49:59 we're running late so let's quickly jump to last topic 15:50:09 #topic ceph/ceph-ansible and tripleo integration 15:50:18 :D 15:50:25 gfidante, fultonj NOW IS THE TIME 15:50:28 gfidente, fultonj: ^^ 15:50:31 :) 15:50:46 ok 15:50:53 We gate tripleo against ceph-ansible builds from the centos storage sig 15:50:58 We don't gate ceph-ansible builds against tripleo however, but want to 15:51:06 The closet thing we have to a gate is a WIP submission in tripleo ci 15:51:16 an example is linked from https://www.redhat.com/archives/rdo-list/2017-September/msg00045.html 15:51:37 so we need to do something and welcome feedback 15:51:47 #info hallway-track discussion at PTG brought up how we can improve ceph/ceph-ansible and tripleo integration and testing 15:51:50 fultonj, in RDO we have implemented automatic tagging in gate jobs in review.r.o 15:52:01 to promote from -candidate to -testing 15:52:07 and from -testing to -release 15:52:07 amoralej++ 15:52:12 we were looking into same thing 15:52:20 and the gating job should be a tripleo run 15:52:27 based on a metadata repo 15:52:28 but we don't have ceph-ansible in review.r.o 15:52:29 rdoinfo 15:52:50 would getting a dlrn instance for ceph/ceph-ansible be enough help get CI jobs running? 15:53:06 in fact you could apply that not only for ceph-ansible but for anything in storage repo 15:53:10 non-voting to start with ... but need somewhere to run the jobs and instance 15:53:31 automation of cbs builds is different worflow as dlrn builds 15:53:33 I guess that should be centos infra given that's where it is hosted? 15:53:47 *instance of dlrn for doing builds and kicking master chasing rpms/repos and ci jobs 15:54:12 jschlueter, yeah, that's a different approach, more similar to the promotion pipeline 15:54:16 for rdo trunk repos 15:54:29 there was interest in getting "dlrn" master chasing of ceph and ceph-ansible going in the near future 15:55:13 and have non-voting CI jobs of tripleo using master chasing ceph/ceph-ansible to provide quicker feedback of when and what broke 15:55:16 ktdreyer: ^ 15:55:43 but not sure what resources/people/efforts that would take to get setup for storage sig to make use of 15:55:58 5 minutes remain. 15:56:18 jschlueter, that can be done, but that'd require an additional repo to be configured in the periodic jobs 15:56:26 ktdreyer: got semi-automated cbs builds of ceph-ansible setup at PTG but looking at what can be dome for more 15:57:12 amoralej: so discussion opened up and need to get trade offs, where we can get resources, effort to maintain and what is needed to get it working and keep it working 15:57:45 that's all more of an FYI and request for addition feedback/input to move it forward 15:58:08 yes, there are different aproaches that can be followed, we can discuss it 15:58:18 thanks amoralej 15:58:33 let's start with cbs builds 15:58:36 #info Looking for additional feedback and input on how Storage SIG can setup more workflow around ceph/ceph-ansible and tripleo integration 15:58:55 * jschlueter nods to apevec 15:59:08 chasing trunk takes not just machine resources, but also org and people 15:59:33 * jschlueter nods 15:59:43 chasing clouds, chasing trunks... hehe :) 16:00:38 And with that we ran out of time. 16:01:01 #topic Chair for next meetig 16:01:14 i can do it 16:01:31 let the one who wants to chair put his hands up in the air! 16:01:40 #action amoralej to chair next meeting 16:01:59 #endmeeting