18:00:14 #startmeeting Ansible Community Meeting 18:00:14 Meeting started Wed Feb 23 18:00:14 2022 UTC. 18:00:14 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 18:00:14 The chair is dmsimard. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions. 18:00:14 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:14 The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_community_meeting' 18:00:24 #topic Agenda https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/645 18:00:31 #info Agenda: https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/645 / Topics: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics 18:00:44 #topic Active community discussions 18:00:49 o/ 18:00:58 #info FEEDBACK WANTED: which directories / files / file patterns should be excluded from the Ansible installation? https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/65 18:01:16 #info unversioning some documentation guides https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/68 18:01:17 o/ 18:01:28 #info Revamping the community/contributor documentation https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/60 18:01:29 o/ 18:01:34 #chair jillr andersson007_ cybette 18:01:34 Current chairs: andersson007_ cybette dmsimard jillr 18:01:45 o/ 18:01:58 #info How to handle moving of content from collections inside the Ansible package to collections outside the Ansible package? https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/66 18:02:08 o/ 18:02:37 #chair samccann 18:02:37 Current chairs: andersson007_ cybette dmsimard jillr samccann 18:02:55 #info Collections included in Ansible should not use files outside of meta/, plugins/, roles/ and playbooks/ https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/70 18:03:25 I think that covers most of the recent active discussions, unless there's another one that someone wants to highlight we can move on to updates 18:03:34 #chair cyberpear 18:03:34 Current chairs: andersson007_ cyberpear cybette dmsimard jillr samccann 18:03:57 * dericcrago waves 18:04:40 #topic updates 18:04:56 #info Ansible 5.4.0 has been released: https://groups.google.com/g/ansible-announce/c/razQPdsJXCs 18:05:21 #chair deric.crago 18:05:21 Current chairs: andersson007_ cyberpear cybette deric.crago dmsimard jillr samccann 18:05:21 o/ 18:05:26 sorry I'm late 18:05:36 #chair acozine 18:05:36 Current chairs: acozine andersson007_ cyberpear cybette deric.crago dmsimard jillr samccann 18:07:26 I don't have any other updates 18:07:31 anything else ? 18:08:08 yep, 30 seconds please 18:08:33 I must say there's somewhat of an overlap between community meeting updates and bullhorn newsletter 18:08:53 ;-) 18:08:55 perhaps we could link to the newsletter from the meeting ? 18:09:18 I don't mind being force-fed the news in meetings 18:09:25 #info Latest bullhorn newsletter (#46) https://mailchi.mp/redhat/the-bullhorn-46 18:09:36 I try to read the bullhorn when it comes out, but it doesn't always happen 18:10:11 #info Any feedback on the steering committee policy update https://github.com/ansible/community-docs/pull/49 would be much appreciated. It contains updates like quorum, a casting vote, veto, inclusion workflow changes. After polishing the PR, we'll create a corresponding community topic. 18:10:36 👍 18:11:14 we moved the bullhorn publication to thursdays so we could include updates from these meetings (once every 2 weeks), but now that it's weekly, maybe we don't need to release bullhorn on thursdays necessarily? 18:12:22 cybette: I don't have a strong opinion, I was mentioning it because it may not be immediately clear what is suitable as a community meeting update vs an entry in the newsletter 18:12:37 linking from the meeting to the latest bullhorn edition feels like a suitable workaround 18:12:48 (without duplicating info, I mean) 18:14:36 in that case, I'd still put important announcements in bullhorn, and then we can link to meeting minutes for the rest. I think a bit of duplication is fine, not everyone reads both sources. 18:14:54 works for me 18:15:00 @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting 18:15:04 👍️ 18:15:48 Anyone have a topic they'd like to talk about ? I will otherwise pick one :) 18:16:32 go for it dmsimard 18:16:48 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:17:12 start from the top with numbered order? :) 18:17:34 The most recent one was created by felixfontein and it speaks to me so let's go with that: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/70 18:17:48 #topic Collections included in Ansible should not use files outside of meta/, plugins/, roles/ and playbooks/ https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/70 18:18:34 This came up as part of discussing which files we should remove from the Ansible package because it contains a LOT of stuff not immediately useful to users: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/65 18:19:25 it sounds like this is a preventive measure - we don't currently have lots of collections that break this rule, and we'd like to keep it that way 18:19:56 which seems smart, and timely 18:20:12 Every time this comes up, I kind of want to say that it's because the "ansible-galaxy collection build" mechanism takes every file in the current working directory and then there is a "manual" ignore list to filter things out. I really feel it should be the other way around but my understanding is that the ship has sailed and changing the behavior 18:20:12 from within ansible-core may not be doable 18:21:13 In other words, I believe "ansible-galaxy collection build" should only take a given set of directories (that are strictly defined within the scope of a role, playbook or collection) and then, perhaps if there are some extra things that the collection author or maintainer wants to add, they can add them manually 18:21:23 i.e, opt-in instead of opt-out 18:21:50 that makes sense, but I could see it being hard to change at this stage 18:22:01 yeah, exactly :( 18:24:16 maybe a dumb question but why? technically or politically? 18:25:11 I don't see it as technical (in other words: it's possible) or even political -- it's from a UX standpoint, it would flip everything the other way around and could be interpreted as a major backwards-incompatible change 18:25:47 is it something that could be part of a major release 'somewhere'? 18:26:20 and then pretend you build a collection with a hypothetical ansible-core 2.13, the same collection would be different when built with 2.12 18:26:23 Tho I guess we'd have to get every collection to flip to opt-in unless there's a script that could do it for them? 18:26:43 I'm thinking about having to go and change that for every collection I maintain and it doesn't feel good at all 18:27:02 I would assume other maintains would also not appreciate it 18:27:15 *maintainers 18:27:33 what if I script did it for you? Like 'run this script' and it creates the correct opt-in file for you? From then on, you manually opt-in any new files you add? 18:27:35 jillr: to be fair, though, do the collections you help maintain have necessary (or otherwise relevant) directories to include beyond meta/, plugins/, roles/ and playbooks/ ? I ask because if not, then it's basically no-op 18:28:27 dmsimard: no but I would still want to go through and do a ton of testing to make sure the right things are and are not being included when built with different ansible-core releases, for QE reasons 18:28:52 right, makes sense, and that's why changing it at this point in time could hurt 18:29:41 does it mean we have to live with that decision forever and be stuck with random files though ? I don't know but having a discussion about it is interesting :) 18:30:01 @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting 18:30:15 I wouldn't say we're stuck forever, but we should consider it a maintenance burden if we did 18:34:29 I think it's worth bringing up to the core team for consideration even if the answer is no then we know we can't have that as an option moving forward 18:35:24 +1 18:35:50 +1 18:36:23 +1 18:37:05 #action dmsimard to ask whether it's possible to allow "ansible-galaxy collection build" to be opt-in rather than opt-out 18:37:38 dmsimard: based on discussions from when this was designed, probasbly a no 18:38:18 bcoca: I wasn't part of these discussions and it's probably a long time ago now so perhaps a good opportunity to talk about it :p 18:39:02 that it is set in stone is one of the possible outcomes and it's ok (I guess) 18:40:38 we can (and should) allow ourselves to think outside the box too, like could there be a configuration (or CLI) argument that provides the behavior we want, etc 18:40:46 i wonder if part of that older decision was to allow collection owners to 'innovate' and if they came up with something great, others could follow? 18:41:23 not from what i remember 18:41:38 or maybe it was designed that way so authors/maintainers could have the flexibility to include anything and everything 18:41:53 I can only speculate since I wasn't part of it 18:41:58 mostly it was due to 3rd party requirements being shipped in collection 18:42:51 makes me wonder if there are any collections actually leveraging that 18:43:09 not afaik 18:43:46 what kinds of 3rd party requirements, do you remember? 18:44:05 like a vendored python library perhaps ? 18:44:38 like, I dunno, pretend community.aws would have a in-tree fork of boto3 for a specific patch or something 18:44:54 (don't do this at home, folks) 18:44:58 hehe, no I rejected that idea when it was made! 18:45:01 @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting 18:45:34 libssh maybe though? I think there was some work there for network collections at one point 18:47:01 looks like ansible.netcommon doesn't currently have any other top-level repo directories though 18:48:16 ah ok, it's all handled in the connection plugin https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible.netcommon/blob/main/plugins/connection/libssh.py 18:48:51 so that fits the pattern we're talking about 18:49:20 well, it doesn't rely on a vendored library and would be included by way of being under the plugins directory 18:49:59 yeah, that's what I mean, it already complies with our proposed "only these directories are legit" rule 18:50:05 I don't know of any other possible scenarios, and also I promise I will never vendor boto3 18:50:19 jillr: thank you, that is a relief 18:50:24 :) 18:50:33 jillr: I had to think about an example and it's what I came up with <3 18:50:56 no worries! 18:51:54 alright, thanks for discussing this topic with me :) 18:52:08 I'd like to leave time for something else or open floor in case someone wants to chat about something else 18:54:52 #topic open floor 18:59:02 hum, I can't think of anything else other than DST time changes are coming up soonish and it could be an opportunity to revisit the meeting time (or have a poll or something) 18:59:12 dmsimard: Maybe a new dict in `galaxy.yml` `include-files:` to have opt-in? 18:59:43 I think this meeting just stuck with UTC the last time? 18:59:44 gundalow: yeah, it could be anything, my point being that we don't necessarily have to change the default behavior on everyone 18:59:59 samccann: yeah, we kept it at the same time so it wound up being later for some folks (I think) 19:00:37 We're up to the hour, time to wrap up. Thanks for coming everyone :) 19:00:40 #endmeeting