14:31:18 <ipanova> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2021-03-11 go/no-go for 3.11.0 release
14:31:18 <ipanova> #info ipanova has joined triage
14:31:18 <ipanova> !start go/no-go for 3.11.0 release
14:31:19 <pulpbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 11 14:31:18 2021 UTC.  The chair is ipanova. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:31:19 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:31:19 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2021-03-11_go/no-go_for_3.11.0_release'
14:31:19 <pulpbot> ipanova: ipanova has joined triage
14:31:30 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage
14:31:30 <ttereshc> !here
14:31:30 <pulpbot> ttereshc: ttereshc has joined triage
14:31:43 <x9c4> #info x9c4 has joined triage
14:31:43 <x9c4> !here
14:31:43 <pulpbot> x9c4: x9c4 has joined triage
14:31:51 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage
14:31:51 <bmbouter> !here
14:31:51 <pulpbot> bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage
14:31:53 <ggainey> #info ggainey has joined triage
14:31:53 <ggainey> !here
14:31:53 <pulpbot> ggainey: ggainey has joined triage
14:32:19 <ipanova> looking at the current milestone we have 2 issues in post
14:32:54 <ipanova> 1st https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1149
14:33:05 <bmbouter> I will look at this one next
14:33:12 <ipanova> 2nd https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1173
14:33:16 <bmbouter> we'll need a second reviewer for 1149 also
14:33:21 <ipanova> 2nd is being reviewed by dalley and me
14:34:10 <ipanova> bmbouter: i can review it as well
14:34:19 <bmbouter> ty
14:34:26 <ipanova> the question is mostly about the approach, right? whether it suffice
14:34:46 <bmbouter> I can try to take a look also today
14:34:59 <ipanova> ty
14:34:59 <bmbouter> I'm out tomorrow and monday though so if you end up merging it I'm ok w/ that because it's in tech preview
14:35:13 <bmbouter> I think regardless we'll end up touching it up more with 3.12
14:35:26 <ipanova> do we want to nominate anything else for this release?
14:36:06 <ipanova> if not then we can talk about the release day
14:36:11 <ttereshc> nah, let's release it
14:36:16 <ipanova> i suggest not doing it on Friday
14:36:35 <bmbouter> +1 to release
14:36:42 <x9c4> +1 to "o"
14:36:44 <bmbouter> we also need to hear a go fro mthe isntaller team
14:36:45 <ggainey> concur - release, either M ot Tue
14:36:45 <x9c4> +1 to "go"
14:36:57 <ipanova> bmbouter: right
14:37:29 <ipanova> mikedep333: how does the installer team stand with regards to the 3.11 release?
14:38:16 <mikedep333> we have done all the necessary adaptive changes for the 3.11 release.
14:38:22 <ipanova> awesome
14:38:34 <bmbouter> excellentay
14:38:35 <ipanova> with this input, how about i will start the release process on monday
14:38:38 <bmbouter> +1
14:38:46 <mikedep333> There is a FIPS support PR that upgrades postgres from 9.6 to 10 on CentOS 7, but we can do that in an installer post-release.
14:39:08 <bmbouter> mikedep333: I'm ok w/ that
14:39:22 <mikedep333> great
14:39:30 <bmbouter> one other fyi related to the 3.11 go/no go
14:39:32 <ggainey> +1
14:40:23 <bmbouter> dalley: x9c4 and I needed to wrap up our plans for what to do about the "abstract distribution fields", we finalized the plan and we need to send the revision to pulp-dev today
14:40:31 <bmbouter> we will do that
14:40:46 <ipanova> sounds good
14:40:58 <bmbouter> this is 3.11 relavent because contrary to what was communicated before plugins should have their 3.11 compatibility releases *also* declare 3.12 support
14:41:07 <bmbouter> aka the deprecation policy remains in tact
14:41:09 <ggainey> ah ok
14:41:26 <ipanova> ack
14:41:46 <ttereshc> that would be great
14:42:10 <ipanova> anything else needs to be highlighted before the monday release?
14:42:33 <dalley> bmbouter, I would still hesitate on that simply because there is not really that much harm in keeping the requirement "just in case"
14:43:05 <dalley> but we can still communicate that it's OK to stand down in terms of making changes
14:43:26 <bmbouter> well then we gotta talk more because I think the agreement was that the normal deprecation policy is in effect
14:44:42 <bmbouter> the main concern I heard from x9c4 was loosing the deprecation policy, so if we do the "new plan" but don't also do that I'm not sure we've addressed it
14:44:57 <bmbouter> losing :) english is hard
14:45:23 <dalley> ok
14:45:26 <x9c4> I agree. It was mostly about the deprecation policy.
14:45:30 <dalley> that's fine then
14:45:43 <x9c4> And thereby the fact that users can upgrade their systems smoothly.
14:45:53 <ipanova> i believe no matter that will be the outcome of this discussion the release happens anyway
14:46:01 <ipanova> s/that/what
14:46:35 <ipanova> we just need to properly communicate that
14:47:13 <bmbouter> ipanova: agreed
14:47:25 <bmbouter> x9c4: dalley let's continue our coordinatoin in #pulp-dev
14:47:36 <bmbouter> ipanova: +1 to go on monday
14:47:46 <ipanova> ok so - are we ok with the Monday go + you guys will take care of sending the followup email to pulp-dev?
14:47:53 <dalley> +1
14:48:33 <dalley> fyi, there is one more change I would like to slip in, I want to add *args and **kwargs to all plugin-facing methods where we might want to add new parameters in the future
14:48:49 <dalley> so that plugins can use them without breaking on older pulpcores
14:48:54 <ttereshc> ipanova, ping me for reviews in case you'll start release in the morning
14:49:06 <ggainey> +1
14:49:21 <ipanova> dalley: ok
14:49:28 <ipanova> ttereshc: will do
14:49:48 <ipanova> great so i will send the email to the pulp-dev with the resolution of this meeting
14:49:52 <ipanova> ty everyone
14:50:02 * ggainey cheers wildly
14:50:08 <ipanova> #endmeeting
14:50:08 <ipanova> !end