18:00:05 <felixfontein> #startmeeting Ansible Community Meeting
18:00:05 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 20 18:00:05 2021 UTC.
18:00:05 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
18:00:05 <zodbot> The chair is felixfontein. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
18:00:05 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_community_meeting'
18:00:05 <felixfontein> #topic Agenda https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/539
18:00:05 <felixfontein> acozine andersson007_ baptistemm bcoca briantist cyberpear cybette dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein geerlingguy gundalow gwmngilfen ikhan_ jillr jtanner lmodemal misc nitzmahone resmo samccann tadeboro cidrblock thaumos zbr: ping!
18:00:09 <felixfontein> #info Agenda: https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/539 / Topics: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics
18:00:12 <felixfontein> #topic Updates
18:00:20 <tadeboro> o/
18:00:23 <jillr> o/
18:00:31 <felixfontein> #chair tadeboro jillr
18:00:31 <zodbot> Current chairs: felixfontein jillr tadeboro
18:00:32 <cyberpear> o/
18:00:42 <felixfontein> #chair cyberpear
18:00:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: cyberpear felixfontein jillr tadeboro
18:01:17 * acozine waves
18:01:29 <briantist> o/
18:01:34 <felixfontein> #chair acozine briantist
18:01:34 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine briantist cyberpear felixfontein jillr tadeboro
18:02:13 <cidrblock[m]> o/
18:02:13 <andersson007_[m]> c2main: I'll try to reply tomorrow
18:02:14 <andersson007_[m]> o/
18:02:19 <cidrblock[m]> I can't stay today, but I wanted to let you all know..... please +0 me if needed
18:02:31 <felixfontein> #info Ansible 5.0.0 alpha2 has been released
18:02:37 <felixfontein> #chair andersson007_[m]
18:02:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear felixfontein jillr tadeboro
18:02:49 <felixfontein> cidrblock[m]: ok! see you around then :)
18:03:06 <dmsimard> I'm here but something came up and I'll be half afk :(
18:03:16 <felixfontein> #chair dmsimard
18:03:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear dmsimard felixfontein jillr tadeboro
18:03:56 <cybette> o/ sorry I'm late...
18:03:56 * samccann waves
18:04:15 <felixfontein> #info ansible-core 2.12.0b2 has been released
18:04:18 <acozine> Carol Chen: three minutes!!! Shocking!
18:04:24 <felixfontein> #chair cybette samccann
18:04:24 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr samccann tadeboro
18:04:34 <jrglynn2[m]> o/
18:04:34 <felixfontein> cybette: still perfectly within time ;)
18:04:39 <felixfontein> #chair jrglynn2[m]
18:04:39 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr jrglynn2[m] samccann tadeboro
18:05:25 <felixfontein> #undo
18:05:25 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by felixfontein at 18:04:15 : ansible-core 2.12.0b2 has been released
18:05:27 <felixfontein> #info ansible-core 2.12.0rc1 has been released
18:05:36 <felixfontein> (sorry for the confusion)
18:06:16 <felixfontein> does anyone have more updates?
18:06:57 <felixfontein> if not, let's start with the first topic:
18:06:58 <felixfontein> #topic Should there be a version 4.10.0 of Ansible after the release of Ansible 5.0.0?
18:07:02 <felixfontein> #info Discussion: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/49
18:07:23 <felixfontein> background: Ansible 4.9.0 is supposed to be released on 2021-11-23, and 5.0.0 on 2021-11-30
18:07:42 <felixfontein> question: do we want another 4.x.0 release, namely 4.10.0, at the regular three week after 4.9.0?
18:08:55 <jillr> it might be nice, but I'm not sure it's worth the docs work samccann mentioned in the issue
18:09:04 <samccann> is it just for 4.10.0, or will it be 4.11.0, etc? are we opening this up for more than one, or just one extra release to give folks extra time to get on the new release?
18:09:10 <cyberpear> Fedora does a month overlap when a new version is released and the (second) older version goes out of support... but depends on whether it's too much work
18:09:25 <felixfontein> samccann: I think it's just 4.10.0, and then stop, as opposed to stopping with 4.9.0
18:09:32 <samccann> @jilr - there is docs work, but it's not major (she sez hoping she didn't jinx herself)
18:09:55 <felixfontein> samccann: jillr: I would opt to minimize docs work by not adding 4 to the version selector once 5 is out
18:09:59 <samccann> we can either 'do nothing' in docs land, in  which case the docs get updated but at the /4/ url and people need to know the secret sauce to find it
18:10:01 <jillr> hehe, yeah I was just thinking how many big projects I've started with, "oh this won't be much work"  :)
18:10:13 <felixfontein> for me the main question is: how much work is it for the people who actually have to do the work?
18:10:17 <samccann> lol yep thinking that as well jillr
18:10:18 <tadeboro> samccann: I do not think we need to provide docs at all since the only reason we are adding another 4.x release is to give people tim to migrate, not to start developing fresh from that version.
18:10:25 <felixfontein> (i.e. dmsimard, dericcrago or who else is involved...)
18:11:29 <samccann> if we don't put 4 in the version switcher, I don't think there is any additional work at all for docs. The porting guides are only on /devel/ anyway and that would be published as normal for a 4.10.0 release
18:11:43 <felixfontein> since dmsimard and dericcrago aren't around, we could also vote to let them decide (since they do the work)
18:12:02 <jillr> what problem are we solving?  A user needs more time to migrate from 4.9 to 5.0 but urgently needs something that merged in the 3 week window after 4.9, and can't upgrade a collection via galaxy?
18:12:05 <acozine> that's a good idea, it's unfair to vote on work nobody here today has to do
18:12:29 <acozine> what would the diff between 4.9 and 4.10 be?
18:12:36 <acozine> are there security fixes or something?
18:12:37 <felixfontein> jillr: it's basically convenience; there's nothing users can't easily do by themselves
18:13:00 <felixfontein> acozine: new versions of ansible-core and new versions of some of the collections, but no breaking changes
18:13:05 <samccann> 4.10 could potentially pick up a dot release on core-2.11, right?
18:13:24 <felixfontein> (about new version of ansible-core... for that we'd have to check its release schedule to be sure it's really a new version)
18:13:30 <dmsimard> o/ I'm here momentarily, reading questions
18:13:51 <dmsimard> samccann: 4.x is bound to >=2.11.x so it will always get the latest version of 2.11 anyway (even after 5.x releases)
18:13:59 <tadeboro> acozine: I did a quick compare of 4.5.0 and 4.6.0 and there were non-trivial amount of updated collections. Quite a few collections released at least one bugfix release during that time.
18:14:14 <felixfontein> I personally don't mind 4.10 being there or 4.10 not being there - as long as we announce in time what will happen (and if there's no 4.10, that announcement should happen soonish)
18:14:49 <tadeboro> This is why I think it would be nice to have a bit more time to go over the migration guide, but as said in the ticket, if this measn a lot of work, it is not worth it.
18:14:55 <jillr> tadeboro: that one might be an outlier, since that was our "pre-Fest, release all the things" timeline  :)
18:15:01 <remindbot[m]> @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting
18:15:05 <dmsimard> There would be a bump of collections if there are pending updates -- for reference there's a table in the changelog for example 4.7.0: https://github.com/ansible-community/ansible-build-data/blob/main/4/CHANGELOG-v4.rst#changed-collections
18:16:06 <dmsimard> jillr: > what problem are we solving?  A user needs more time to migrate from 4.9 to 5.0 but urgently needs something that merged in the 3 week window after 4.9, and can't upgrade a collection via galaxy?
18:16:13 <dmsimard> there is nothing the user can't do on his own
18:16:18 <dmsimard> ansible is a convenience package
18:16:30 <dmsimard> in the sense that there is nothing preventing them from installing more up to date collections out of band
18:16:57 <felixfontein> dmsimard: how much work is it for you to do a release?
18:17:31 <dmsimard> most of it is automated, it's at most 30 minutes
18:18:13 <dmsimard> and that's not 30 minutes typing, a lot of that is https://xkcd.com/303/
18:18:14 <acozine> if someone doesn't want to upgrade to 5, will they want new versions of a bunch of collections in 4?
18:18:23 <tadeboro> The issue with "cherry-picking" some of the collections when using batteries-included package is future updates. If the user forgets to remove that override once it is not needed anymore, any updates shipped with ansible are "masked".
18:18:41 <acozine> ah, for 30 minutes of work, I guess it's worth doing
18:18:55 <tadeboro> acozine: Those versions are backward-compatible, and there is not such guaratee with Ansible 5.
18:19:03 <dmsimard> I saw samccann's comment and it concerns me more than the work needed to get a 4.10 release out
18:19:48 <felixfontein> ok, since we have quite a few more things we should discuss today, we should stop with this topic soon.
18:19:53 <tadeboro> I would ignore the docs for reasons listed a few lines up.
18:20:07 <felixfontein> so let's either vote on something now, or plan how to proceed in an async fashion.
18:20:30 <felixfontein> we could vote on the docs issue first, to find out what people think about it
18:20:44 <felixfontein> then we know more how much work the actual release is :)
18:20:56 <samccann> yeah as mentioned above, the porting guide will get updated and can be pushed out at the click of a button, so no real extra work here for docs other than say 15 min max
18:21:05 <dmsimard> vote if we want an ansible 4 in the switcher ?
18:21:16 <felixfontein> dmsimard: I think that's basically the question
18:21:19 <samccann> and even that is only if we want it instant. it would come out on the nightly builds all on its own
18:22:04 <felixfontein> VOTE: if we release Ansible 4.10.0, do we want 4 to be in the version switcher then (and for a bit longer), or should 4 vanish once 5 is latest?
18:22:27 <felixfontein> + = 4 in version switcher, - = don't show it once 5 is out
18:22:32 <dmsimard> -1 considering ansible 4 (or ansible 3) are already not in the switcher to begin with
18:22:35 <tadeboro> -1
18:22:37 <jillr> -1
18:22:39 <felixfontein> -1
18:22:41 <samccann> -1
18:22:43 <acozine> -1 4 should vanish, otherwise it looks like both are maintained
18:22:45 <jrglynn2[m]> -1
18:22:55 <andersson007_[m]> -1
18:23:26 <cybette> -1
18:24:06 <dmsimard> Then, with that in mind, I am +1 to a 4.10 considering it is not a lot of effort on our end
18:24:11 <felixfontein> #agreed On the docsite, we want 4 not to be in the version switcher once Ansible 5 is `latest`
18:24:16 <dmsimard> and with that I need to step away again, be back when I can
18:24:33 <felixfontein> VOTE: (1) release 4.10.0, (2) do not release 4.10.0, (3) let dmsimard decide
18:25:02 <acozine> 3
18:25:04 <jillr> 3 (the docs work was my only actual concern, but I dont have to do the release work either)
18:25:04 <andersson007_> 3
18:25:11 <cybette> 3
18:25:15 <samccann> 3
18:25:23 <jrglynn2[m]> 3
18:25:27 <felixfontein> 1 (since dmsimard says it's very little work for him :) )
18:25:35 <tadeboro> 1 (because I am an assh*** ;)
18:26:12 <felixfontein> #chair
18:26:12 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr jrglynn2[m] samccann tadeboro
18:26:21 <acozine> disagreement != assh***itude
18:26:49 <briantist> 1
18:27:11 <briantist> (with fallback to 3)
18:27:53 <acozine> sounds like the collection preference is "publish 4.10 unless dmsimard refuses to do so"
18:27:56 <cyberpear> 3
18:27:58 <felixfontein> since there's nobody opposed to having 4.10.0, I guess it's up to dmsimard with a wish for having 4.10.0
18:28:00 <jtanner> TIL "assh**itude"
18:28:02 <acozine> s/collection/collective
18:28:02 <felixfontein> acozine: +1
18:28:39 <acozine> jtanner: that's what happens when you hang with wordsmiths
18:28:51 <jtanner> so it seems
18:29:04 <felixfontein> #agreed we prefer 4.10.0 to be released until dmsimard doesn't want to do the work
18:29:16 <felixfontein> ok, new topic :)
18:29:21 <felixfontein> #topic Meeting time - end of daylight savings
18:29:21 <felixfontein> #info Discussion: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/48
18:29:22 <dmsimard> lol, thanks :P
18:29:42 <felixfontein> I'm not sure we have time to really discuss it, so please add your opinions to it in the issue, and let's vote there
18:29:45 <felixfontein> does that sound good to everyone?
18:29:53 * samccann hides in well-lit cave until the Sun gets back to normal
18:30:01 <remindbot[m]> @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting
18:30:11 <andersson007_> +1
18:30:39 <dmsimard> I tend to be in the middle of timezones so anything usually works for me but I would tend to vote in favor of doing it a bit earlier so it's not as late for folks in EMEA/APAC
18:31:06 <cybette> yeah we can vote in the gh issue
18:31:12 <felixfontein> good :)
18:31:15 <felixfontein> #topic Clarify Python version restriction documentation
18:31:16 <felixfontein> #info Discussion: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/47
18:31:30 <felixfontein> For this one, let's basically vote on cyberpear's proposal, and then on the resulting proposal
18:32:04 <felixfontein> cyberpear's propsal is https://github.com/ansible-collections/overview/pull/187#discussion_r728517755
18:32:24 <felixfontein> VOTE: merge cyberpear's proposal (https://github.com/ansible-collections/overview/pull/187#discussion_r728517755) into the PR?
18:32:49 <felixfontein> +1
18:32:56 <tadeboro> +1
18:32:58 <jillr> +1
18:33:00 <cyberpear> +1
18:33:22 <jrglynn2[m]> +1
18:33:41 <andersson007_> +1
18:34:08 <samccann> I find 'collection-supported versions of ansible-core' to be a bit wordy
18:34:17 <samccann> does this basically mean Ansible 2.10 or later?
18:34:29 <felixfontein> samccann: depends on the collection
18:34:45 <acozine> if the collection itself only runs on 2.12, then it's python versions that 2.12 supports
18:34:52 <felixfontein> samccann: if the collection supports ansible-base 2.10, ansible-core 2.11 and ansible-core 2.12, then you take all Python versions supported by at least one of these three versions
18:35:20 <felixfontein> (if the collection runs (on the user's machine) with 2.12, it can't support anything that 2.12 doesn't support)
18:35:41 <felixfontein> ("can't support" in the sense that the user cannot run anything with a Python that 2.12 doesn't support)
18:35:49 <acozine> and must support all versions that 2.12 does support
18:36:37 <samccann> yeah that makes sense
18:37:08 <felixfontein> acozine: if it doesn't support all versions 2.12 supports, it must document which ones it supports
18:37:24 <samccann> the suggested change is what I struggle with. Maybe everyone else but me 'gets' it? or maybe the PR needs an example like 'if the collection supports ansible-base 2.10, ansible-core 2.11 and ansible-core 2.12, then you take all Python versions supported by at least one of these three versions'
18:38:46 <andersson007_> +1 to add an example
18:38:49 <felixfontein> ok, I think we really have to stop with this topic
18:38:57 <felixfontein> we really have to discuss such things in the issue
18:38:58 <cyberpear> I'm not tied to the wording.
18:39:03 <acozine> I'm okay with merging it and trying to make it better later
18:39:05 <acozine> +1
18:39:35 <samccann> yeah we can wordsmith post-merge if needed
18:39:43 <felixfontein> I've merged it, please add suggestions to the PR to improve the wording, or discuss it in the PR or issue
18:40:04 <felixfontein> #topic Inclusion candidates for Ansible 5
18:40:04 <felixfontein> #info Discussion: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/32
18:40:08 <felixfontein> we really have to switch to this topic :)
18:40:16 <felixfontein> (since we have only 20 minutes left for today)
18:40:57 <felixfontein> tadeboro did a lot of work on the reviews, and also created a short-list of collections we can already vote on: infoblox.nios_modules, netapp.storagegrid and cloud.common
18:41:32 <felixfontein> I suggest to first look at cloud.common since it's a dependency for another candidate
18:42:47 <felixfontein> since nobody seems to disagree:
18:42:50 <felixfontein> #topic Inclusion of cloud.common in Ansible 5
18:42:50 <felixfontein> #info Discussion: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/30
18:43:32 <felixfontein> tadeboro and me reviewed the collection and I think we both are happy with it's current state
18:43:49 <andersson007_> let's vote then?
18:44:09 <andersson007_> (2 reviews is emo enough)
18:44:12 <jillr> I'm abstaining from this one
18:44:15 <acozine> it has reliable maintainers, that's for sure :)
18:44:22 <jillr> hehe, thanks!
18:44:23 <felixfontein> maybe let's wait for 1-2 minutes so everyone can take a quick look
18:44:23 <andersson007_> +1
18:44:32 <felixfontein> acozine: indeed!
18:45:01 <remindbot[m]> @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting
18:45:08 <jrglynn2[m]> i have to leave, bye all
18:45:12 <felixfontein> bye jrglynn2[m]!
18:45:39 <andersson007_> the reviewers are also quite trustful:)
18:45:48 <felixfontein> I think if jillr abstains we might not have quorum from the steering committee's side, so we can't finish the vote during the meeting (and have to hope that the ones not present will add their vote soon)
18:45:57 <felixfontein> #unchair jrglynn2[m]
18:45:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear cybette dmsimard felixfontein jillr samccann tadeboro
18:45:57 <cybette> +1 for cloud.common
18:46:07 <felixfontein> VOTE: include cloud.common in Ansible 5?
18:46:10 <felixfontein> +1
18:46:12 <jillr> does anyone object to be voting for my own submissions?
18:46:12 <tadeboro> +1
18:46:14 <acozine> +1
18:46:14 <andersson007_> +1
18:46:15 <jillr> *to me
18:46:17 <samccann> not steering anything but the readme doesn't seem to show all the info on galaxy.
18:46:19 <cybette> +1
18:46:25 <gundalow> +1
18:46:35 <felixfontein> samccann: it will after the next release :)
18:46:47 <tadeboro> samccann: It needs a new release.
18:46:52 <felixfontein> #chair gundalow
18:46:52 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear cybette dmsimard felixfontein gundalow jillr samccann tadeboro
18:46:53 <gundalow> (here now)
18:46:57 <acozine> jillr: I think you can vote, it's not like you get any compensation for getting a collection into the Ansible package
18:47:16 <andersson007_> :)
18:47:19 <jillr> acozine: rats, I thought that would be part of my bonus calciulation  ;)  (j/k!)
18:47:26 <jillr> +1
18:49:35 <felixfontein> ok, looks like this passed, with 6 x +1, 1 x +-0, 0 x -1 steering committee votes, and another +1 vote
18:50:00 <tadeboro> I got the same numbers, so I think this one passed.
18:50:03 <felixfontein> #agreed include cloud.common in Ansible 5
18:50:09 <felixfontein> congrats!
18:50:15 <andersson007_> 🎉
18:50:20 <felixfontein> *fireworks* ;)
18:50:28 <felixfontein> #topic Inclusion of infoblox.nios_modules in Ansible 5
18:50:28 <felixfontein> #info Discussion: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/11
18:50:31 <jillr> woohoo!
18:52:34 <felixfontein> infoblox.nios_modules now also has two favourable reviews (tadeboro and me again). it took a long time (they already applied for Ansible 4), but they finally got around I think
18:52:58 <gundalow> I have a quick skim though and I think we are (finally) in a good state
18:53:23 <tadeboro> They applied for Ansible 3 ... but the current collection is in a waaay better shape compared to only a few months ago.
18:53:45 <gundalow> I'm really impressed, they've clearly put a lot of effort into it
18:53:53 <felixfontein> tadeboro: oh right... 3 it was :)
18:54:28 <felixfontein> a nice part of including that colleciton is that we can change the deprecation of the infoblox content in community.general to a removal with redirects
18:54:54 <felixfontein> VOTE: should we include infoblox.nios_modules in Ansible 5?
18:54:58 <tadeboro> +1
18:54:58 <andersson007_> +1
18:55:12 <gundalow> Felix, yup good point. I've been wanting to clear up those redirections for ages
18:55:13 <cybette> +1
18:55:13 <gundalow> +1
18:55:15 <jillr> +1
18:55:17 <felixfontein> +1
18:55:25 <felixfontein> gundalow: me too, resp. removing the content :)
18:55:35 <acozine> +1
18:56:35 <felixfontein> #agreed include infoblox.nios_modules in Ansible 5
18:56:37 <felixfontein> awesome :)
18:56:53 <felixfontein> ok, let's take a look at a last one for today:
18:56:55 <felixfontein> #topic Inclusion of netapp.storagegrid in Ansible 5
18:56:55 <felixfontein> #info Discussion: https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion/discussions/23
18:57:43 <felixfontein> netapp.storagegrid has two favourable reviews by tadeboro and jillr
18:58:06 <felixfontein> (I only looked a bit at the docs, and all issues I found were promptly fixed)
18:58:36 <andersson007_> plus netapp collections have responsible maintainers
18:58:49 <tadeboro> Netapp devs know what they are doing since we gave them quite a hard time during the Ansible 4 inclusion cycle ;)
18:58:57 <acozine> heh
18:58:58 <gundalow> Yup, NetApp have various collections already.
18:58:58 <felixfontein> hehe indeed :)
18:59:23 <felixfontein> tadeboro: the result was definitely worth it
18:59:53 <felixfontein> VOTE: should we include netapp.storagegrid in Ansible 5?
18:59:54 <felixfontein> #chair
18:59:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear cybette dmsimard felixfontein gundalow jillr samccann tadeboro
18:59:56 <andersson007_> +1
19:00:00 <gundalow> +1
19:00:01 <felixfontein> +1
19:00:02 <jillr> +1
19:00:04 <acozine> +1
19:00:14 <tadeboro> +1
19:00:20 <cyberpear> +1
19:00:30 <samccann> +1
19:00:51 <felixfontein> #agreed include netapp.storagegrid in Ansible 5
19:00:57 <cybette> +1
19:01:02 <felixfontein> #topic Open floor
19:01:06 <acozine> I have to run to another meeting
19:01:21 <felixfontein> ok, we have zero collections left that are ready for voting :)
19:01:26 <felixfontein> let's hope that number increases for next week ;)
19:01:27 <acozine> good to see folks, and thanks felixfontein for running hte meeting
19:01:33 <acozine> #unchair acozine
19:01:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: andersson007_[m] briantist cyberpear cybette dmsimard felixfontein gundalow jillr samccann tadeboro
19:01:39 <felixfontein> (because next week is the last chance for inclusion in Ansible 5!)
19:01:39 <tadeboro> Bye acozine o/
19:01:45 <felixfontein> bye acozine!
19:01:52 <felixfontein> does anyone have something for a very quick open floor?
19:01:52 <acozine> \o
19:02:48 <tadeboro> I have nothing. Instead, I will go and update the inclusion requests and prepare build data update.
19:03:11 <felixfontein> tadeboro: great! I just wanted to ask whether I should prepare the build data update, or whether you want to do it
19:03:32 <felixfontein> in any case, thanks everyone for participating in the meeting!
19:03:39 <felixfontein> #endmeeting