15:01:39 <ttereshc> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2021-01-26 go/no-go for 3.10
15:01:39 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage
15:01:39 <ttereshc> !start go/no-go for 3.10
15:01:39 <pulpbot> Meeting started Tue Jan 26 15:01:39 2021 UTC.  The chair is ttereshc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:39 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:01:39 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2021-01-26_go/no-go_for_3.10'
15:01:39 <pulpbot> ttereshc: ttereshc has joined triage
15:01:42 <daviddavis> :)
15:01:44 <daviddavis> #info daviddavis has joined triage
15:01:44 <daviddavis> !here
15:01:44 <pulpbot> daviddavis: daviddavis has joined triage
15:01:44 <ggainey> heh
15:01:46 <ggainey> #info ggainey has joined triage
15:01:46 <ggainey> !here
15:01:46 <pulpbot> ggainey: ggainey has joined triage
15:01:53 <dkliban> #info dkliban has joined triage
15:01:53 <dkliban> !here
15:01:53 <pulpbot> dkliban: dkliban has joined triage
15:01:54 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage
15:01:54 <bmbouter> !here
15:01:55 <pulpbot> bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage
15:02:08 <ttereshc> https://pulp.plan.io/versions/166
15:02:14 <ttereshc> here is our milestone
15:02:19 <ttereshc> how are we doing?
15:02:39 <dkliban> i still need to work on 7935
15:02:42 <dkliban> i will do that today
15:02:53 <daviddavis> I'm still waiting on reviews for https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1070
15:03:11 <ggainey> ttereshc: 7549 - cleaning up black/flake and just finishing docs - PR shortly
15:03:12 <bmbouter> I am going to work on 7930 today and I've been working on 8048
15:03:23 <bmbouter> daviddavis: I hope to review test your stuff
15:03:35 <daviddavis> ok, I have a follow up PR too so I need https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1070 merged today
15:03:38 <ttereshc> daviddavis, I can probably review yours as well
15:03:43 <daviddavis> ty
15:03:53 <bmbouter> understood
15:04:26 <bmbouter> so I'm observing that pulp_container's rbac is involving a variety of contributiont to pulpcore
15:04:30 <ttereshc> I need a review for the rbac stuff https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1088
15:04:34 <bmbouter> which overall is great
15:04:46 <bmbouter> I can review that now but we need a second reviewer
15:04:47 <fao89> #info fao89 has joined triage
15:04:47 <fao89> !here
15:04:47 <pulpbot> fao89: fao89 has joined triage
15:04:51 <x9c4> #info x9c4 has joined triage
15:04:51 <x9c4> !here
15:04:51 <pulpbot> x9c4: x9c4 has joined triage
15:05:09 <ttereshc> bmbouter, I'll ask x9c4  or ipanova
15:05:32 <ttereshc> but we hope to talk at open floor about how granular we want to go with repo versions
15:05:52 <bmbouter> sounds good
15:06:16 <ttereshc> what is the general feeling on the release schedule?
15:06:19 <bmbouter> so I think we want to avoid a situation where pulp_container needs "one more thing" into pulpcore 3.10 but it already released
15:06:27 <dkliban> i have filed a couple of issues with regard to access policies missing from pulpcore
15:06:32 <dkliban> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8159 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8160
15:06:37 <bmbouter> yup issues like these ^
15:06:45 <dkliban> and i am not sure if we need to hold the release or they can be part of a z-stream
15:07:12 <bmbouter> they would involve net-new functionality I don't think we can z-stream
15:07:16 <ipanova> dkliban: we can get this later
15:07:29 <ipanova> galaxy folks are not blocked on this
15:08:03 <ipanova> our users won't be able to add/remove users from the groups they own
15:08:09 <ipanova> in the initial rbac release
15:08:17 <ggainey> hm
15:08:18 <fao89> from my past experience with last minute work with RBAC, I would say it would be better to delay the release
15:08:18 <dkliban> ipanova: are you sure? this is the result of a new change in 3.10 that blocks access to all non-admin users if a policy is not defined
15:09:13 <dkliban> and i wonder if this is not just going to be a problem for pulp_container but other pplugins such galaxy_ng and pulp_ansbile also
15:09:21 <ipanova> dkliban: well, community users won't be able to manage their groups
15:09:25 <mikedep333> #info mikedep333 has joined triage
15:09:25 <mikedep333> !here
15:09:26 <pulpbot> mikedep333: mikedep333 has joined triage
15:09:30 <ipanova> galaxy has their own policy
15:09:43 <dkliban> ipanova: i understand that
15:09:53 <bmbouter> I overall thing we would do well to wait until these issues are resolved in pulpcore
15:10:09 <ttereshc> yeah
15:10:10 <ipanova> the question is whether it is acceptable to add this functionality in a month or we should postpone the release
15:10:14 <fao89> RBAC related, galaxy is kinda blocked anyway by https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8048
15:10:30 <bmbouter> true but that's a bugfix so that can z-stream
15:10:37 <ttereshc> what is driving this release date? mostly GalaxyNG, correct?
15:10:49 <ipanova> i would postone the release if we can to get this groups rbac in.
15:11:03 <fao89> yep, but I mean, no need to rush for galaxy if galaxy cannot fully RBAC right now
15:11:12 <bmbouter> that's fair fao89
15:11:32 <x9c4> dkliban, Don't you need user rbac too?
15:11:38 <daviddavis> ttereshc: we promised the object label stakeholders end of jan
15:11:50 <ipanova> daviddavis: right..
15:11:52 <daviddavis> but I think they're fine with beginning of feb
15:11:56 <daviddavis> I can double check
15:12:01 <ggainey> ttereshc: I believe katello is looking to have 3.10 for their initial 4.0 work, yeah?
15:12:04 <dkliban> x9c4: right now i am only concerned about managing groups of users
15:12:25 <ggainey> 4.0 being mid-Feb-ish
15:12:39 <ttereshc> ggainey, we can check, my impression that they just moved to 3.9
15:12:40 <bmbouter> in terms of timeline I'm proposing we have another checking on thurs and then next tues and release either on Feb 2 or Feb 4th
15:12:47 <ggainey> ttereshc: ah kk
15:12:58 <ttereshc> ggainey,  so the question is when they plan to consume 3.10 bits
15:13:04 <ggainey> yus
15:13:36 <fao89> +1 to Feb 4th
15:13:50 <ttereshc> bmbouter,  in the past folks expressed the increased stress levels if we postpone by couple of days each time
15:13:56 <dkliban> +1 to Feb 4th
15:14:00 <bmbouter> yup we can do Feb 4th
15:14:01 <ipanova> yes +1 to the suggestion of 4th feb
15:14:05 <ttereshc> does it make sense to have a check inmeeting next Tue?
15:14:09 <ttereshc> ok
15:14:18 <daviddavis> +1 from me. I'm going to push back our fips meeting too if there's no objection.
15:14:24 <bmbouter> please do
15:14:32 <ggainey> ttereshc: you are correct about 4.0, btw
15:14:42 <fao89> I think next pulpcore meeting will be enough
15:14:46 <ggainey> I'm good w/the 4th and a go/nogo on Tues
15:14:49 <ttereshc> so go/no-go on Tue Feb 2nd?
15:14:53 <bmbouter> +1
15:14:54 <ggainey> +1
15:14:57 <x9c4> +1
15:14:58 <ipanova> +1
15:15:07 <ttereshc> ok, great
15:15:22 <ttereshc> anything else related to a release? last call
15:15:43 <daviddavis> whens the release party
15:15:45 <daviddavis> jk
15:15:48 <bmbouter> when is lmjachky around next?
15:15:55 <ttereshc> daviddavis,  you are the biggest fan, I know
15:15:58 <daviddavis> :D
15:16:14 <ttereshc> let's release and we'll see what to do with a party
15:16:17 <bmbouter> this PR is very close but it needs one or two things https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1012/files
15:16:25 <bmbouter> and he pushed a change but not the asked for changes
15:16:36 <ttereshc> bmbouter, I believe he should work today
15:17:02 <fao89> yep, it is on our calendar
15:17:18 <ttereshc> he usually mentions in his status emails and in the calendar
15:17:27 <ttereshc> ok, thanks everyone
15:17:27 <fao89> the PTO calendar is the opposite for him
15:17:37 <ttereshc> #endmeeting
15:17:37 <ttereshc> !end