15:04:15 #startmeeting RDO meeting - 2018-12-19 15:04:15 Meeting started Wed Dec 19 15:04:15 2018 UTC. 15:04:15 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 15:04:15 The chair is number80. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:04:15 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:04:15 The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting_-_2018-12-19' 15:04:16 Meeting started Wed Dec 19 15:04:15 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is number80. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:04:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:04:20 The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting___2018_12_19' 15:04:28 #topic roll call 15:04:33 agenda is here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/RDO-Meeting 15:05:22 agenda today is short, so please ladies and gentlemen, let's get this sorted before we go (or not go) to end of year vacations :) 15:06:18 o/ 15:07:07 o/ 15:07:10 #chair ykarel dciabrin_ 15:07:10 Current chairs: dciabrin_ number80 ykarel 15:07:12 Current chairs: dciabrin_ number80 ykarel 15:07:24 o/ 15:08:10 o/ 15:08:20 #chair PagliaccisCloud amoralej 15:08:20 Current chairs: PagliaccisCloud amoralej dciabrin_ number80 ykarel 15:08:21 Current chairs: PagliaccisCloud amoralej dciabrin_ number80 ykarel 15:08:26 Ok, i guess we can start :) 15:08:47 #topic Revisit haproxy situation 15:08:55 I guess dciabrin_ came with good news :) 15:09:08 so heads up, we have two reviews to land to support haproxy 1.8 15:09:35 they are backward compatible, but until they land, we can't ship haproxy in container images or jobs will fail 15:10:05 (new haproxy, that is) 15:10:23 so I don't think we should rush to update f28 jobs, or push haproxy 18 in stein :) 15:10:40 dciabrin_: so next steps for us will be 1. building haproxy 1.8 2. provide a separate repository for upstream CI with that haproxy? 15:11:10 number80, separate repo will probably not be enough, because nowadays we consume haproxy only in containers? 15:11:30 o/ 15:11:37 i'd say 1) build haproxy18, 2) we land the 2 reviews, 3) we decide if we ship haproxy1.8 in f28 or in stein 15:12:03 sounds like a good plan to me 15:12:28 FYI, this is what PaaS SIGs ships for OpenShift => https://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=21148 15:12:44 So everyone agrees with what dciabrin_ suggests? 15:12:52 number80, oh good to know thx 15:13:19 * Duck o/ 15:13:24 #chair Duck 15:13:24 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej dciabrin_ number80 ykarel 15:13:26 Current chairs: Duck PagliaccisCloud amoralej dciabrin_ number80 ykarel 15:13:53 dciabrin_: since nobody disagreed, let's proceed but don't wait next meeting if you need to move forward 15:14:07 dciabrin_, can't get order for 1 and 2 15:14:21 keeping the CI pipeline running is top priority 15:14:26 dciabrin_, number80 i'm not clear when you says 1) build haproxy18 15:14:35 you mean for centos7 or fedora28? 15:14:36 ykarel: we already have haproxy 1.8 built 15:15:03 amoralej: whatever suits CI, I'm not picky since openshift in PaaS SIG already uses haproxy 1.8 15:15:10 my point is: let's not push haproxy1.8 in CI until we land the two reviews i mentionned. once they land, we can use haproxy on any job we want, that should work 15:15:11 number80, but when not testing that, can't get the order, so asked 15:15:31 how those patches need haproxy 1.8 build 15:15:39 if they are not testing it 15:15:47 iiuc the patches doesn't need it 15:15:54 yup /me too 15:15:54 correct 15:15:56 ykarel: I'll let dciabrin_ explains, but I understood that we need the patches first, then we can push the haproxy package so they can work on testing it in containers build 15:16:15 yes that sounds correct 15:16:22 without these patches, it will fail for sure 15:16:23 right, so the patches drive how to run haproxy: either with the old 1.5 command line flags, or with the new 1.8 flags 15:16:32 (at least, the first one is crystal clear for me) 15:16:43 so we need to land those patch before 1.8 is deployed, otherwise the jobs which consume haproxy1.8 will fail 15:17:00 ok, then let's start getting the patches in 15:17:04 then we can evaluate 15:17:08 ack +1 15:17:12 note that haproxy 1.8 is already in fedora 15:17:19 let me double check 15:17:52 in fedora-stable we have haproxy-1.8.14-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm right now 15:17:55 amoralej, we probably don't ship haproxy 1.8 in the container images that are used in the f28 jobs 15:17:59 so we are good 15:18:03 ok 15:18:14 wdym with don't ship... 15:18:47 amoralej, sorry I mean, the container images that are used in the f28 probably come from centos, and thus use haproxy1.5 15:18:54 in the f28 jobs* 15:18:56 makes sense? 15:18:59 correct 15:19:44 yes, today 15:19:56 but i'd expect to start getting fedora images at some point? 15:20:11 we need it to test all other changes 15:20:15 python3, etc... 15:20:20 amoralej, so only after we land the two patches i was mentionning earlier, otherwise this will break the jobs :) 15:20:37 I'm just waiting for reviews at this point 15:20:45 should be ok 15:21:33 yes 15:21:44 for me, the best option would be 15:21:47 1. get patches 15:21:54 2. start building fc28 images 15:22:06 3. start using fc28 for gating in addition to centos7 15:22:22 using haproxy1.8 in centos7 is doable but should be fallback plan 15:22:28 #agreed use F28 and/or PaaS SIG build of haproxy 1.8 15:22:28 wfm 15:23:16 #info bandini submitted patches for tripleo to support haproxy 1.8 without breaking compat with 1.5 15:23:42 (please update meetings logs accordingly so we remember what we decided in 3 weeks :) ) 15:24:16 ack :) 15:24:16 :) 15:24:45 all patches are belong to dciabrin 15:24:54 I only brought my good looks to the table 15:25:13 haha :) 15:30:47 \o/ 15:30:54 Then, let's wrap it up 15:31:50 number80: still no news about the ML migration :-/ 15:31:56 I guess noone cares 15:32:04 #topic ML migration 15:32:13 Duck can you put a link 15:32:15 ? 15:32:28 a link to? 15:32:48 to the discussion, AFAIK, I can't remember the discussion :) 15:33:08 it's not on the list 15:33:14 Duck: I was mostly waiting for leanderthal to define who should be nominated to own the instance 15:33:35 jpena: I mailed her and pingued but no success 15:33:49 is she on PTO maybe? 15:33:49 also pingued last week or the previous one here 15:34:17 well, I asked her when she just came back from PTO, and I don't recall seeing other ones 15:34:24 oh, ok 15:34:35 maybe she's overloaded 15:34:52 jpena: she was working this week but yes quite busy 15:34:56 anyway, maybe someone could inquire kindly 15:35:02 * number80 had a call with her on monday 15:35:18 that's all 15:35:23 ho 15:35:26 #info ping leanderthal about ML migration 15:35:32 Thanks Duck 15:35:39 #topic open floor 15:35:44 jpena: could you have a look at the pending change for package updates please? 15:35:45 last chance to bring a topic 15:35:57 I have a quick topic! 15:36:32 I threw up a little patch for the ppc64le container build job to get it to run more often. Was just wondering if I could get eyes on it, it's tiny =) https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/17741/ 15:36:42 Javier Peña proposed rdo-infra/rdo-infra-playbooks master: automagically install security updates https://review.rdoproject.org/r/17426 15:37:18 jpena: 17426, seems it was waiting for some people to give their opinion 15:37:31 Duck: yes, I'm pinging them 15:37:37 thanks :-) 15:37:47 #info baha requested reviewers for ppc64le container build job 15:37:55 https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/17741/ 15:38:06 #action number80 review it 15:38:12 Thanks baha :) 15:38:33 Thank you! 15:38:39 Now we need a chair for January, 9 meeting 15:38:51 i can take it 15:39:04 #info amoralej will chair Jan, 9 meeting 15:39:10 thanks amoralej! :) 15:39:23 Then, we can end the meeting! 15:40:17 I wish you to enjoy Xmas, new year eve, whatever celebrations you plan if you do celebrate something :) 15:40:33 See you next year! 15:40:35 #endmeeting