15:03:19 <ipanova> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2021-03-02 go/no-go for 3.11.0 release 15:03:19 <ipanova> #info ipanova has joined triage 15:03:19 <ipanova> !start go/no-go for 3.11.0 release 15:03:19 <pulpbot> Meeting started Tue Mar 2 15:03:19 2021 UTC. The chair is ipanova. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:03:19 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 15:03:19 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2021-03-02_go/no-go_for_3.11.0_release' 15:03:19 <pulpbot> ipanova: ipanova has joined triage 15:03:50 <ggainey> #info ggainey has joined triage 15:03:50 <ggainey> !here 15:03:50 <pulpbot> ggainey: ggainey has joined triage 15:04:10 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage 15:04:10 <ttereshc> !here 15:04:10 <pulpbot> ttereshc: ttereshc has joined triage 15:04:13 <x9c4> #info x9c4 has joined triage 15:04:13 <x9c4> !here 15:04:13 <pulpbot> x9c4: x9c4 has joined triage 15:04:21 <ipanova> https://pulp.plan.io/versions/174 we have 8 issues in new/assigned state. 15:04:27 <daviddavis> #info daviddavis has joined triage 15:04:27 <daviddavis> !here 15:04:27 <pulpbot> daviddavis: daviddavis has joined triage 15:05:07 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage 15:05:07 <bmbouter> !here 15:05:07 <pulpbot> bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage 15:05:10 <daviddavis> I think we can remove this issue from 3.11? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8204 15:05:43 <bmbouter> I agree I'm not familiar with that one 15:05:45 <ipanova> sure, this does not look like a blocker 15:05:50 <ipanova> should i move it to 3.12? 15:06:06 <ggainey> def not a blocker for 3.11 - 3.12 sounds fine 15:06:10 <daviddavis> +1 15:06:10 <mikedep333> #info mikedep333 has joined triage 15:06:10 <mikedep333> !here 15:06:10 <pulpbot> mikedep333: mikedep333 has joined triage 15:06:17 <ipanova> ok 15:06:22 <ttereshc> +1 15:06:29 <ggainey> ipanova: RE https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7915 - what actually wants to happen here? just the RemoteArtifacts check in settings.py? 15:06:55 <bmbouter> yes I believe so 15:07:04 <daviddavis> I added the remote artifact check in settings 15:07:10 <daviddavis> so if that's it, we can close it out 15:07:12 <bmbouter> yes I agree 15:07:16 <bmbouter> dis is done 15:07:16 <ggainey> +1 15:07:20 * ggainey cheers wildly 15:07:21 <ipanova> yes 15:07:34 <ipanova> the under discussion part decided to be not implemented 15:07:39 <ipanova> aka the command to handle RA 15:07:44 <ipanova> so closed-complete? 15:07:47 <ipanova> daviddavis: ^? 15:08:04 <daviddavis> +1 15:08:10 <ggainey> coolio 15:08:13 * ipanova closing 15:08:16 <daviddavis> here's the RA command https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7986 15:08:26 <bmbouter> I'd be willing to move 8231 to 3.12 15:08:29 <ggainey> RE https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8231 - is this a 3.11 blocker? 15:08:31 <bmbouter> propose moving* 15:08:31 <ggainey> ha! 15:08:35 <ggainey> bmbouter: gmta :) 15:09:05 <x9c4> I was suggesting to take 8231, but i can do that still for 3.12 15:09:17 <ipanova> +1 to move to 3.12 15:09:25 <ggainey> +1 15:09:31 <ttereshc> +1 15:09:49 <bmbouter> who is clicking the buttons for these changes? 15:10:04 <ipanova> me 15:10:15 <bmbouter> great 15:10:30 <bmbouter> x9c4: if you wanted to take one, maybe take https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8167 ? 15:10:48 <bmbouter> I have as assigned and some code already but it's not done and it's nothing you couldn't do readily anyway (I think) 15:11:03 <bmbouter> just a thought, not really go-no go specific if we want to move on 15:11:22 <x9c4> bmbouter, let's talk about that later. 15:12:00 <ipanova> :) 15:12:21 <bmbouter> sounds good 15:12:31 <bmbouter> I wanted to check on the tech preview remaining items 15:13:15 <ipanova> we have left 3 FIPS stories in new/assigned state 15:13:20 <bmbouter> in looking at these I think we did get acks from users/stakeholders on each of them so maybe we're good 15:14:03 <daviddavis> I talked to partha a couple days ago about import-checks and he was a little unsure about removing tech preview from it 15:14:25 <daviddavis> I'd suggest waiting one more release on removing tech preview from import/export 15:14:26 <bmbouter> cool we can bump one more release then 15:14:29 <bmbouter> +1 15:14:31 <ggainey> kk 15:14:35 <ipanova> daviddavis: ack 15:14:42 <ttereshc> +1 15:15:06 <daviddavis> I removed the tech preview label on correlation id after confirming with katello 15:15:16 <bmbouter> great, that makes sense, ty 15:16:03 <bmbouter> I thought 8258 was going to assigned by gerrod 15:16:16 <bmbouter> but that was last thursday, I missed yesterday's fips checkin 15:17:57 <ipanova> can anyone from installer team speak up for this issue? mikedep333 fao89 ^ 15:18:40 <fao89> which issue? 15:18:52 <bmbouter> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8258 15:18:53 <daviddavis> he gave an update on it yesterday 15:19:02 <daviddavis> maybe he forgot to assign it to himself 15:20:33 <fao89> was this the issue mikedep333 passed to me? 15:20:48 <ggainey> having just updated two issues to assign them to myself, I def feel that pain 15:20:51 <bmbouter> I think this was one gerrod was handling 15:21:51 <bmbouter> I think it's safe to assume this is ASSIGNED 15:22:04 <bmbouter> is it time to move into the go/no-go part? 15:22:39 <ttereshc> +1 to move on 15:22:59 <ipanova> bmbouter: sure, what is the feeling of releasing 3.11 in a week? 15:23:27 <bmbouter> so I think we need to actually timebox the 3.11 release probably 15:23:34 <daviddavis> only one issue at new at this point 15:23:37 <bmbouter> because we know 3.12 needs to come at the end of march 15:23:43 <ipanova> daviddavis: will there be anyone able to get to 'what-if scenario'? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7986 15:24:09 <daviddavis> I don't know. we can probably check at thursday's fips check in 15:24:27 <ipanova> daviddavis: sounds good 15:24:28 <ggainey> are we thinking about 7986 as an extension of handle-content-checksums? like a --dry-run option? 15:24:58 <daviddavis> yea, it should also report what on-demand contnet will be impacted 15:25:12 <ggainey> kk, cool 15:25:15 <ggainey> I'll add a comment 15:25:55 <daviddavis> ggainey: it should all be there 15:26:27 <ipanova> bmbouter: agreed to timebox the 3.11 release. let's checkin on friday? and keep the tentative release date march 9? 15:26:39 <daviddavis> imo we should aim for march 9 and then fallback to march 11 15:26:42 <daviddavis> +1 15:26:45 <ggainey> +1 15:26:46 <bmbouter> yeah I think that'll work 15:26:57 <x9c4> +1 15:27:00 <bmbouter> I believe our absolute last day would be the 16th 15:27:09 <ggainey> daviddavis: RE 7986 - I mean to call out specifically that it's an addition to handle-content-checksums, not a new command 15:27:12 <ggainey> concur 15:27:15 <ipanova> alright i will schedule a meeting on friday march 5 15:27:23 <bmbouter> +1. also I want to point out that by the number's we're looking pretty good, but there are a few things unrepresented here 15:27:26 <ipanova> so far we are go for March 9 release 15:27:31 <bmbouter> +1 15:27:40 <ggainey> +1 15:27:58 <bmbouter> the worker timeout is in POST but it's got a varierty of unfinished work and it's not easy 15:28:24 <bmbouter> also I think we need closure on the auto-distriute planning w/ dalley, daviddavis 15:28:27 <ipanova> are there any PRs the need to reviews? 15:28:32 <dalley> bmbouter, I agree 15:28:47 <ipanova> to be reviewed * 15:29:44 <dalley> bmbouter, personal opinion: I think we should move forwards w/ my plan, but I actually agree now that long-term, we should transition models. I don't think it's possible to do that in any kind of short timeframe 15:30:19 <ipanova> alright, we are out of time. the resolution is go for 3.11 march 9, i will schedule a checkin meeting march 5 15:30:22 <ipanova> #endmeeting 15:30:22 <ipanova> !end