15:01:03 <ipanova> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2021-03-05 go/no-go for 3.11.0 release
15:01:03 <ipanova> #info ipanova has joined triage
15:01:03 <ipanova> !start go/no-go for 3.11.0 release
15:01:04 <pulpbot> Meeting started Fri Mar  5 15:01:03 2021 UTC.  The chair is ipanova. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:04 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:01:04 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2021-03-05_go/no-go_for_3.11.0_release'
15:01:04 <pulpbot> ipanova: ipanova has joined triage
15:01:40 <x9c4> #info x9c4 has joined triage
15:01:40 <x9c4> !here
15:01:40 <pulpbot> x9c4: x9c4 has joined triage
15:02:03 <daviddavis> I just reviewed this and would like to get it considered for 3.11 as a tech preview https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1173
15:02:06 <daviddavis> just fyi
15:02:10 <ipanova> https://pulp.plan.io/versions/174
15:02:25 <ipanova> daviddavis: nice
15:02:28 <ipanova> no objections
15:02:37 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage
15:02:37 <bmbouter> !here
15:02:37 <pulpbot> bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage
15:02:44 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage
15:02:44 <ttereshc> !here
15:02:44 <pulpbot> ttereshc: ttereshc has joined triage
15:02:44 <daviddavis> cool, not a huge deal if it doens't make it
15:02:57 <ipanova> i will put it for 3.11 for now
15:02:58 <bmbouter> I'm ok w/ that if it merges in time
15:02:59 <ipanova> ?
15:03:43 <x9c4> Should we include https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8330 ?
15:03:47 <ttereshc> we need to make sure it is marked as tech preview
15:03:56 <ggainey> #info ggainey has joined triage
15:03:56 <ggainey> !here
15:03:56 <pulpbot> ggainey: ggainey has joined triage
15:04:08 <gerrod> #info gerrod has joined triage
15:04:08 <gerrod> !here
15:04:08 <pulpbot> gerrod: gerrod has joined triage
15:04:13 <x9c4> It is needed to get https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8167 merged
15:05:06 <bmbouter> agreed
15:05:16 <ggainey> then it needs to be marked 3.11 as well
15:05:19 <ggainey> coolio
15:05:19 <x9c4> Sorry i was a bit fast.
15:05:32 <x9c4> +1 to davids suggestion.
15:06:12 <ipanova> ok marjed https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7986 for 3.11
15:06:21 <ipanova> marked*
15:06:21 <bmbouter> I also think we need to get this merged https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1162
15:06:53 <ipanova> can in go in the order of what is on the milestone first?
15:07:00 <ipanova> it feels a bit chaotic
15:07:01 <bmbouter> sure any order you like
15:07:37 <ipanova> from what i see on the milestone this one is the only in assigned https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8322
15:07:41 <ipanova> rest is post
15:07:44 <ipanova> and just needs review
15:07:58 <ipanova> what is the state with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8322?
15:08:34 <ipanova> bmbouter: ^
15:08:47 <bmbouter> I'm about to start it, it's not a big piece of work but realistically with me on pto on monday, and helping with review, and the fire drill from ansible today, I propose we move the release back 1 or 2 days, final move
15:09:40 <ipanova> ok, let;s keep this into account
15:10:00 <ipanova> is there any other outstanding work besides reviews?
15:10:25 <ttereshc> all the work we do is outstanding and we do it outstandingly well
15:10:31 <ipanova> heh
15:10:32 <daviddavis> lol
15:10:34 <ggainey> ha! tru
15:10:43 <bmbouter> ha
15:10:53 <bmbouter> x9c4: this is still at draft is that accurate https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1163
15:10:53 <ipanova> since this is already in post https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1162 and it is not in a draft state we can move this to 3.11 i have no objections
15:11:22 <x9c4> no. i'll undraft.
15:11:33 <bmbouter> cool then that'll be an easy review I think
15:11:58 <ttereshc> re 1162, if we deprecate ion 3.11, does it mean that we'll remove it in 3.12?
15:12:09 <ttereshc> if yes, then we need to update the pr
15:12:40 <bmbouter> I was thinking yes, but if it's not removed in 3.12 specifically I'm ok w/ that
15:12:43 <ipanova> ttereshc: agreed
15:12:46 <x9c4> It would not impose a real problem to keep the deprecation around one cycle longer.
15:12:50 <x9c4> but i can adjust.
15:13:12 <ttereshc> it's not a problem I agree
15:13:16 <ipanova> +1 to adjust, let's follow out deprecation cycle policy.
15:13:25 <ipanova> s/out/our
15:13:27 <x9c4> I chose 3.12, because it was moved to that milestone.
15:13:43 <bmbouter> yup, I think if you can adjust back to 3.11 and push it would be better overall
15:13:52 <x9c4> +1 I'll do
15:13:56 <bmbouter> and x9c4 what you did made sense given how it was marked too
15:14:01 <ipanova> sweet
15:14:10 <ttereshc> x9c4, and please create a task to remove it if it's not done yet
15:14:20 <ttereshc> (with assigned milestone)
15:14:28 <bmbouter> +1 great idea
15:14:29 <x9c4> k
15:14:40 <ttereshc> ty
15:15:09 <ipanova> are we ready to decide on go-no go date?
15:15:32 <ipanova> actually
15:15:38 <ipanova> bmbouter: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1149 this is marked for 3.11
15:15:54 <ipanova> can you review?
15:16:01 <bmbouter> oh yeah, if we move it back I can review on tuesday+ (I can't today already overloaded)
15:16:10 <bmbouter> if we can't then I think move to 3.12
15:16:13 <ipanova> i remember you had some concerns about this issue
15:16:26 <ipanova> ok
15:16:27 <bmbouter> yeah I do and I want to review, I saw the ping just too much to do
15:17:15 <ipanova> alright, so with numbes of the PRs to review and 1 issue still to complete are we ok to move the release to march 10?
15:17:24 <bmbouter> also one more thing, x9c4 I believe you have concerns for the distributor abstract plan that went to pulp-dev yesterday. totally understandable.
15:17:46 <bmbouter> since that plan has required work for 3.11 compat plugins I think we have to discuss those concerns (and I'd like to) before we can publish 3.11 actually
15:19:32 <x9c4> My understanding from the last meeting was that we can do with proper renaming, and that way keep the deprecation cycle.
15:19:51 <x9c4> I guess i missed a detail.
15:20:28 <ipanova> bmbouter: will the outcome of this discussion push the release date even more?
15:20:29 <bmbouter> you didn't it's that plan was determined to be very high effort
15:20:37 <ipanova> i believe we have agreed that we can push further anymore.
15:20:44 <bmbouter> probably it will
15:21:08 <bmbouter> I remember hearing the absolute last date was really the 16th?
15:21:25 <bmbouter> I think a push of 2 days is probably all we need tho so that would be the 11th
15:21:43 <bmbouter> can someone remind me of the date drivers again?
15:22:28 <ipanova> bmbouter: we also have 3.12that needs to go out before the end of this month
15:22:46 <bmbouter> yup agreed and 2 weeks in between seemed ok to me at least
15:23:05 <bmbouter> what can I say 3.11 isn't ready :/
15:24:51 <ipanova> what about fips deadlines?
15:26:06 <daviddavis> the rest of the fips work is to just get ALLOWED_CONTENT_CHECKSUMS working which no stakeholder is waiting on
15:26:21 <daviddavis> the restof the fips work in pulpcore*
15:26:23 <bmbouter> agreed and we'll be doing that in 3.12 or maybe even 3.13
15:26:33 <bmbouter> the goal is 3.12 tho
15:26:38 <ipanova> ok so the only pressing matter is to get 3.12 out of the door by end of match
15:26:41 <ipanova> march*
15:27:32 <bmbouter> that's my understanding, and that's a pretty firm deadline
15:27:37 <ipanova> let's push the 3.11 release to march 11
15:27:53 <ipanova> bmbouter:  do you feel like you will be able to clarify all the concerns with x9c4?
15:28:07 <ipanova> about the distributor abstract plan
15:28:15 <bmbouter> well it's not really me and him, it's a group discussion we were having with daley and daviddavis
15:28:28 <bmbouter> dalley
15:28:30 <ipanova> daviddavis: is out anyway, unless this happens today
15:28:54 <ipanova> my main question is there will be enough time to have this discussions by march 11 release date
15:28:56 <bmbouter> today is already full, I believe daviddavis stated (and please confirm) that he would defer to the group should he be unavailable
15:29:07 <daviddavis> +1
15:29:37 <ipanova> we have 1 minute left
15:29:39 <bmbouter> x9c4: the best thing to do would be to reply on the mailing list and dalley to set us up a 1 hour public call to disucss on tuesday for anyone
15:29:50 <bmbouter> I think next wed for the go/nogo
15:29:53 <x9c4> agree.
15:30:03 <bmbouter> we won't know enough on tueday to say for sure but we could on wed
15:30:08 <ttereshc> yeah, +1 to one more go/no-go
15:30:14 <x9c4> +1
15:30:31 <ipanova> bmbouter: ack agree
15:30:40 <ipanova> i will schedule one more
15:31:01 <fao89> 10 minutes break and then triage?
15:31:04 <dalley> x9c4, are you referring to the idea to use db_column?
15:31:34 <ttereshc> fao89, +1 for a break
15:31:36 <ttereshc> ty
15:31:47 <dalley> I tried it, Django didn't care, because the field name was the same, and it seems to care about the field name rather than the actual name of the column in the DB
15:31:47 <ipanova> bmbouter: i am moving the tentative day to march 11 or directly to march 16?
15:31:53 <x9c4> dalley, yes, that too.
15:31:56 <dalley> so it had the same problem
15:33:02 <ipanova> #endmeeting
15:33:02 <ipanova> !end