14:30:52 <dalley> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2018-03-13
14:30:52 <dalley> #info dalley has joined triage
14:30:53 <pulpbot> Meeting started Tue Mar 13 14:30:52 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is dalley. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:30:53 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:30:53 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2018_03_13'
14:30:53 <pulpbot> dalley: dalley has joined triage
14:31:41 <dkliban> !here
14:31:41 <dkliban> #info dkliban has joined triage
14:31:42 <pulpbot> dkliban: dkliban has joined triage
14:31:46 <asmacdo> !here
14:31:46 <asmacdo> #info asmacdo has joined triage
14:31:46 <pulpbot> asmacdo: asmacdo has joined triage
14:31:47 <misa> Configuration key [gpg_key_id] is not supported
14:32:02 <dalley> !next
14:32:03 <dalley> #topic Requesting content from nested distribution path results in 500 error - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3449
14:32:04 <pulpbot> dalley: 4 issues left to triage: 3449, 3456, 3460, 3462
14:32:05 <pulpbot> Issue #3449 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium
14:32:06 <pulpbot> Requesting content from nested distribution path results in 500 error - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3449
14:32:10 <daviddavis> !here
14:32:10 <daviddavis> #info daviddavis has joined triage
14:32:10 <pulpbot> daviddavis: daviddavis has joined triage
14:32:20 <daviddavis> I think we should close this out
14:32:30 <ipanova> !here
14:32:30 <ipanova> #info ipanova has joined triage
14:32:30 <pulpbot> ipanova: ipanova has joined triage
14:32:39 <daviddavis> changing get() to first() presents other problems
14:32:56 <dkliban> daviddavis: why close it?
14:33:05 <asmacdo> what problems?
14:33:15 <daviddavis> like you might have 'foo/bar/test.iso' but if the first distribution it matches is 'foo' it's going to go with that distribution
14:33:25 <daviddavis> so first() is not a good solution
14:33:29 <dkliban> i agree
14:33:37 <asmacdo> first() is better than 500
14:33:43 <daviddavis> time is better spent on #3051 IMO
14:33:49 <daviddavis> we should just add #3051 to the sprint
14:33:51 <asmacdo> seems reasonable as a stopgap pre-beta
14:33:52 <dkliban> +1
14:34:05 <dkliban> i would rather it return 500
14:34:11 <bmbouter> !here
14:34:11 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage
14:34:11 <pulpbot> bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage
14:34:13 <dkliban> since it's not supposed to work
14:34:13 <asmacdo> i think 3051 is pretty difficult and will take time
14:34:30 <daviddavis> yea, that could be. I am torn.
14:34:36 <asmacdo> if we do fist() + documentation for the beta, we can enforce after the beta
14:34:45 <ipanova> misa: yeah you need to add this option into the validation
14:34:54 <asmacdo> if we accept we should add a checklist item to 3051 to s/first/giet
14:35:18 <daviddavis> if we fix 3051, then get() will work
14:35:33 <daviddavis> oh
14:35:34 <dkliban> yeah ... i think we should close this issue
14:35:35 <daviddavis> I see
14:35:36 <asmacdo> exactly. so when we fix 3051, we should switch back to get
14:35:43 <daviddavis> yea, sorry misunderstood
14:36:02 <dalley> as checklist item #1 for 3051 we could just revert the commit
14:36:08 <daviddavis> yes
14:36:09 <dalley> and then proceed
14:36:15 <daviddavis> well, actually...
14:36:27 <daviddavis> oh we're not supporting upgrades?
14:36:32 <asmacdo> not in the beta
14:36:36 <daviddavis> ok
14:36:38 <asmacdo> not from 1 beta to the next
14:37:01 <daviddavis> what about from beta to GA? users could create distributions in the beta with overlapping paths
14:37:09 <daviddavis> and then we can't revert #3449
14:37:12 <bmbouter> not fro mbeta to GA either
14:37:15 <daviddavis> ok
14:37:16 <asmacdo> theres no way we could support beta -> GA
14:37:31 <bmbouter> well there are ways... but we shouldn't do the
14:37:33 <bmbouter> them
14:37:46 <asmacdo> yeah, we would have to support from each beta to the next beta
14:37:56 <bmbouter> yeah it would be a huge amount of work for very little benefit
14:38:07 <dkliban> i think we are getting distracted from the issue we are triaging
14:38:20 <daviddavis> yea I feel like we're tied on #3449? anyone with a deciding vote?
14:38:21 <asmacdo> anyway, i think 3051 needs to be approached with care. if it is rushed, we will have lots of problems
14:39:21 <daviddavis> so we do leave the 500 error + docs or add a temporary fix that has some odd behaviors?
14:39:33 <dkliban> leave 500 + docs
14:39:34 <daviddavis> the temporary fix includes docs too
14:39:34 <dalley> +1 close the issue and wait for a more proper solution
14:39:47 <asmacdo> first() > 500 ...
14:40:29 <dkliban> ok .... let's switch to first and add docs
14:40:40 <daviddavis> +1
14:40:54 <ipanova> what about skipping this for now, rich consensus and triage next time ?:)
14:40:54 <dalley> personally, as far as the beta is concerned, if you create overlapping paths despite the warnings and the intrinsic nonsensicalness, you should expect issues
14:41:02 <dkliban> yeah
14:41:22 <bmbouter> yup
14:41:27 <dkliban> dalley: i agree ... so let's accept
14:41:36 <asmacdo> issues being "i got 1 but not the one that i expected" or "the server died"
14:42:22 <dalley> I'm confused as to what the current proposal is
14:42:29 <asmacdo> !propose accept
14:42:29 <asmacdo> #idea Proposed for #3449: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state.
14:42:29 <pulpbot> asmacdo: Proposed for #3449: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state.
14:42:54 <daviddavis> dalley: it's to prevent a 500 error basically by using first() which may not match the correct distributor
14:43:03 <daviddavis> I'll add a checklist item to
14:43:05 <daviddavis> #3051
14:43:25 <dalley> no objections to accept?
14:43:53 <bmbouter> +1 to accept
14:43:57 <dalley> !accept
14:43:57 <dalley> #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state.
14:43:57 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state.
14:43:58 <asmacdo> sorry to be so stubborn :)
14:43:58 <pulpbot> dalley: 3 issues left to triage: 3456, 3460, 3462
14:43:59 <dalley> #topic OperationalError: database is locked - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3456
14:43:59 <pulpbot> Issue #3456 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium
14:44:00 <pulpbot> OperationalError: database is locked - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3456
14:44:50 <daviddavis> asmacdo: to answer your question, it happens sometimes in travis and also pulp qe hits this when running their smash tests
14:45:04 <daviddavis> which is odd because both things are sequential and not sending pulp concurrent requests
14:45:19 <asmacdo> :(
14:45:40 <bmbouter> load testing sqlite is expected to produce this
14:46:06 <dalley> +1 to asmacdo proposal #2
14:46:07 <asmacdo> IMO QE and travis should only be using postgres for now
14:46:21 <dkliban> can we just set a higher timeout?
14:46:32 <daviddavis> that was my suggestion
14:46:39 <bmbouter> +1 to higher timeout also
14:46:52 <daviddavis> I think we should also add something to the docs though as asmacdo suggests
14:46:59 <bmbouter> we have something like that already
14:47:04 <bmbouter> just to point it out
14:47:09 <daviddavis> oh ok, nm then
14:47:21 <bmbouter> https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/installation/instructions.html#database-setup
14:47:38 <bmbouter> maybe it can be improved I just wanted to call out what we're holding currently
14:47:47 <asmacdo> IMO that should be in dev docs, not user docs
14:48:35 <asmacdo> however the easyfix seems to be increasing the timeout. so lets start there.
14:49:14 <daviddavis> also this should be in the Pulp project
14:49:20 <daviddavis> no idea why I added this to File Support
14:49:46 <daviddavis> !propose other accept moving to Pulp and add note to try increasing timeout first
14:49:46 <daviddavis> #idea Proposed for #3456: accept moving to Pulp and add note to try increasing timeout first
14:49:46 <pulpbot> daviddavis: Proposed for #3456: accept moving to Pulp and add note to try increasing timeout first
14:49:52 <asmacdo> +1
14:49:56 <dkliban> +1
14:51:02 <dalley> should the issue be left open after increasing the timeout?
14:51:16 <daviddavis> I feel like we can reopen if need be
14:51:23 <dalley> cool
14:51:28 <dalley> +1
14:51:29 <bmbouter> +1
14:51:31 <dalley> !accept
14:51:31 <dalley> #agreed accept moving to Pulp and add note to try increasing timeout first
14:51:31 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: accept moving to Pulp and add note to try increasing timeout first
14:51:32 <pulpbot> dalley: 2 issues left to triage: 3460, 3462
14:51:33 <dalley> #topic Pulp does not include srpm packages when generating errata - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3460
14:51:33 <pulpbot> Issue #3460 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium
14:51:34 <pulpbot> Pulp does not include srpm packages when generating errata - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3460
14:52:50 <dkliban> does RedHat publish srpms in errata?
14:54:36 <ipanova> i thought just rpms
14:57:12 <ipanova> !propose skip
14:57:12 <ipanova> #idea Proposed for #3460: Skip this issue for this triage session.
14:57:12 <pulpbot> ipanova: Proposed for #3460: Skip this issue for this triage session.
14:57:56 <bmbouter> would we just accept and send to backlog?
14:58:07 <bmbouter> oh skip
14:58:14 <bmbouter> +1 to skip I didn't realize bizhang filed
14:58:16 <dalley> +1 skip
14:58:29 <daviddavis> also we should move this to rpm support
14:58:38 <dalley> +1 rpm
14:58:47 <dalley> !propose skip and move to RPM support
14:58:47 <pulpbot> dalley: propose skip Propose skipping the current issue for this triage session.
14:58:59 <dalley> #idea Proposed for #3460: skip and move to RPM support
14:58:59 <dalley> !propose other skip and move to RPM support
14:58:59 <pulpbot> dalley: Proposed for #3460: skip and move to RPM support
14:59:26 <ipanova> +1 yes let's move on
14:59:33 <daviddavis> +1
14:59:56 <bmbouter> +1
15:00:06 <dalley> !accept
15:00:06 <dalley> #agreed skip and move to RPM support
15:00:06 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: skip and move to RPM support
15:00:07 <dalley> #topic Pulp produces incorrect crane json for removed tags - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3462
15:00:08 <pulpbot> dalley: 1 issues left to triage: 3462
15:00:09 <pulpbot> Issue #3462 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium
15:00:10 <pulpbot> Pulp produces incorrect crane json for removed tags - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/3462
15:00:22 <bmbouter> note this lull in convo suggests that this was not the right meeting to triage that in
15:00:29 * bmbouter observes
15:00:38 <daviddavis> lol
15:00:38 <bmbouter> any crane experts here?
15:00:53 <ipanova> that's the issue i mentioned on team meeting
15:01:19 <ipanova> it should get into 2.15.3
15:01:28 <bmbouter> 2.15.3 is already frozen
15:01:36 <ipanova> sorry
15:01:39 <ipanova> 2.16.1
15:01:41 <bmbouter> oh word
15:01:53 <bmbouter> +1
15:02:04 <ipanova> so given the timeframes whether add to this sprint or next one.
15:02:18 <dalley> !propose other accept and add to sprint
15:02:18 <dalley> #idea Proposed for #3462: accept and add to sprint
15:02:18 <pulpbot> dalley: Proposed for #3462: accept and add to sprint
15:02:33 * ipanova lost with numbers and dates today :D
15:02:38 <ipanova> +!
15:02:39 <ipanova> +1
15:02:41 <asmacdo> +1
15:02:52 <bmbouter> +1 add to sprint
15:02:54 <dalley> !accept
15:02:54 <dalley> #agreed accept and add to sprint
15:02:54 <pulpbot> dalley: Current proposal accepted: accept and add to sprint
15:02:56 <pulpbot> dalley: No issues to triage.
15:02:57 <dalley> !end
15:02:57 <dalley> #endmeeting