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