Pulpcore Meeting Minutes

Minutes
#44

May 10th

  • Look through remaining maybe-finished issues
  • z-releases
  • 3.20 tentative release date? first go/no-go?
  • status of django 2.2 in pulpcore 3.7 / 3.14
    • updating core/3.7 to last 2.2LTS, will require a change in (at least) matching pulp_container version
    • need to evaluate other plugins (Required PR: ?)
    • need a plan for who/when/testing
  • bmbouter and dkliban are updating pulp_file tests to use pytest, merging them with pulpcore
#45

May 24th

#46

May 31st

#47

Pending AIs

[dkliban] release pulpcore 3.19.1
[bmbouter] to propose majority use of nightly tests
[bmbouter] to highlight UI component creation on discourse

June 7th

  • telemetry pr in-review
  • CI Update
    • Functional tests to be run inside the container instead of the host
      • Installation is a nightmere today
      • More similar to dev-environment
  • Reducing CI runtime:
    • moving most tests to nightly
  • Collaboration with david N on using galaxy NG generic React + Patternfly components for a future Pulp UI
#48

Pending AIs

[dkliban] release pulpcore 3.19.1
[bmbouter] to propose majority use of nightly tests
[bmbouter] to highlight UI component creation on discourse
[matthias] figure out where sort is coming from

June 14th

#49

Pending AIs

[x9c4] Post on discourse about uninstalling pep8speaks
[x9c4] Investigate and post on Discourse about squashing migrations

July 12, 2022

#50

July 19, 2022

#51

August 9th, 2022

#52

August 23th, 2022

#53

August 30, 2022

  • pulpcore 3.21 release plans?
  • need someone to regularly go to katello integration call and report for pulpcore
    • dkliban to take over the reporting role for pulpcore
  • We need to have rules for approvals.
    • proposal: Require one Approval from SME and one non-necessarily-SME.
    • rationale: We do not have enough people to find two SME for each PR. Admin-merge is not a good solution (and an even harder requirement). Each pulpcore committer should be able to find code smells.
      • We’re supposed to have two SMEs for each component, so couldn’t we have two SME reviewers?
        • even when we do - if one (of the two) SMEs submits the PR, we’re still short a reviewer
      • problem: we don’t have the SMEs for pulpcore components written down somewhere
        • solution: mdellweg to write up SME components and list
  • FYI: pulp-smash proposal to be put into read-only mode on Sept 5th
  • set prio-list label
    • to review asynchronously and propose 3 items via pulp-dev, then we will review next week
    • added prio-list query to the top of this hackmd Issues · pulp/pulpcore · GitHub
  • review/unblock any assigned tickets, so folks have no more than 2 items assigned (or find a good reason to increase the limit)
  • backport discussion
    • still doing updating automated CI updates for every release branch back to 3.14
      • suggestion: have a list of explicit “supported releases”
      • AI for dkliban to write up and implement
    • suggestion: after a product release drops active support, we do stop eager backports
      • e.g. Once Satellite 6.N+1 comes out, “active” support stops and they only patch critical issues, z-streams not planned in advance
#54

September 6, 2022

  • Update list of SME
  • content-type change affects a pulp_ansible test
  • Discussion on https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/3136
    • Suggestion: instead of using uuid directly, provide a pulp_uuid function which we can change the implementation of without needing future migrations
      • Can be done independently of whether we adopt UUIDv7 right now
    • Discuss further at 3.21 go-no-go meeting
#55

September 13, 2022

#56

September 20, 2022

  • There’s an ask for more opinions
  • Some kanban reflections
    • Outbound: How do issues move off the Kanban board? Lots of “done” issues currently, clutters the per-repo view
      • Pulp Kanban board · GitHub
      • it is not implemented yet, but Tanya’s idea was manually dispatching a workflow to clean the done tasks at the beginning of the planning
    • Inbound: many plugins have nothing on the board, is that an accurate portrayal of priority or a process issue? Do we need to add items more frequently?
      • Only 2 “free to take” issues outside of the RPM plugin
    • Challenge: How do we manage the prio-list label with full inclusivity in an async environment?
    • We lack hard limits on the in progress/review columns
    • Items with reviews must move back to “in progress” if not ready to merge.
    • What to do with PRs that never had ‘prio-list’ ( community contributions, some old issue before kanban era, )
#57

September 27, 2022

#58

October 11, 2022

1 Like
#59

October 18, 2022

  • CI failures on 3.16
    • failure on the local filesystem runner
    • proposal: skip the single test because it’s preventing us from running all tests
    • observation: this pulp_rpm has a similar failure https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/2838
      • actually it’s different and it needs an actual code change in pulp_rpm test to fix so it’s unrelated
  • deadlock PR desperately needs another review(er) please
  • pulp_file needs some TLC
  • design discussion for: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/issues/2851
  • bmbouter scheduling the zero downtime working group
#60

(NOTE: apologies for these postings being behind - new meeting-facilitator skipped a groove and didna post. Catching up now.)

November 15, 2022

  • 3.22 release schedule
    • ipanova is the release shepherd
    • We’re at 2 months since 3.21
    • tentative GA date is Nov 30
    • 16 and 23 of Nov go/no-go meetings
    • what should go in?
      • domains
        • needs issue, add to 3.22 blockers [AI: gerrod]
      • blockers
  • django4/core-3.25 discussion
    • django-4 happens in April
    • 3.25 needs more time due to likelihood of breaking-changes
    • don’t want to get downstream products “stuck” on older versions that will EOL
    • “when should 3.23 and 3.24 happen”
      • IF 3.25 is going to be “django-4” - prob want to have significant burn-in
      • 3.23 - prob end-of Jan, to get in anything we want to have available for “conference season” in Feb
      • 3.24 - prob end-of March, for 2-month-cadence/pre-django-4
    • 3.25/django-4 linkage is not required - let’s “see what happens” w/ django and re-evaluate in April
  • AI: ggainey to post to discourse
  • AI: ggainey to engage in “creative rearranging” of team doc

November 8, 2022 - skipped due to PulpCON

November 1, 2022

  • Failing test related to repo version delete
    • dkliban to investigate

October 25, 2022

  • Filter-process appears to need some more refactoring
    • x9c4 is willing to do, but needs some buy-in for quick review turnarounds
    • will fix a couple of openapi-schema bugs
  • discussion ensues RE opportunity costs
    • what about new content-types?
    • how can we best prioritize competing priorities from groups that are not in agreement?
      • let’s get folk from “emerging” opportunities come talk to us directly
#61

November 29, 2022

  • Are we going to actually pay attention to the CodeQL output?
  • [davidd] Pulp’s policy around settings changes https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/issues/3417#issuecomment-1329659503
    • We set a number of settings and are concerned about settings changes
    • If settings are not covered by semver, could there be a documented policy/deprecation cycle?
    • proposal: settings should follow same semver policy as REST API
      • i.e.: can deprecate, but not remove
      • each rename/removal is Going To Be A Pain - “please don’t” is the generic dev policy
    • proposal: doc settings.local more in docs?
  • pulp_labels
    • https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/3427
    • currently exposed for distributions, repositories, remotes (so far)
    • jsonb is overkill
    • would need to remove generic-relation
    • exposes some of the functionality in the API
    • breaking change?
      • plugin API affected
      • need to research if anyone is actively “aware of” the current implementation
      • marked tech-preview - so (technically) “can do anything”
      • OTOH - we’ guarantee that plugin-breaking-changes won’t happen until breaking-change releases (e.g. 3.25)
    • Base model introduction would require Very Complicated Migration
    • REST API unaffected
      • poss bug in current REST
  • pulpcore 3.22 GA is postponed
    • all thumbs-up
  • tech-preview discussion
    • we have a tech-preview problem
    • just because we say “we can break this”, doesn’t make it even remotely a good idea
    • how long can/should something say “tech-preview”
    • can we move to “how much is it used”?
      • analytics to the rescue!
#62

December 6, 2022

  • Proposal: have pulpcore adopt zero-downtime migration policy
  • Proposal: give decko write-perms to pulpcore
    • previously, generally waited a year/major feature addition as SME to add
    • feels like we need to give it decko now to allow reviews for pytest work to “count”
    • AI: [dkliban] add decko to pulpcore team
  • remove ppicka invitation/commit bit since January
    • AI: [bmbouter] to remove from mtg invite
    • AI: [team] move ppicka to Contributor
  • Should settings be semver controlled?
    • dkliban: leaning yes
    • bmbouter: users are asking for it, we should give it to them
      • still can do “emergency” changes (e.g. security issues) if we need to under semver
    • x9c4: can we get away with not-defining and deal w/ it case-by-case
      • since semver allows for emergency fixes, prob ok
    • ggainey: also leaning yes
    • mdellweg: we can decide for pulpcore, but not for Everyone
      • maybe we should put up in discourse for a week for discussion
    • bmbouter: transparency is good
    • AI: [x9c4] open thread in discourse
    • AI: [all] revisit and confirm at next mtg
  • Labels PR is ready and needs review/merge: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/3427
    • do we want this in 3.22?
      • it’s a bugfix
      • merge it - “waiting in main doesn’t actually help”
    • 3.22 is 12-DEC - so review ASAP
    • AI: [team] get 3427 reviewed so we can merge no later than Fri
  • Q: how easy is it to create a new release?
    • Proposal: we should do releases more often
    • plugins that depend on core/main can’t release until that main becomes a ‘real’ release
    • Proposal: let’s start by releasing quickly (two weeks? three?)
      • also - no go/nogo
      • strictly time-based
      • Y-release ONLY if there are features
      • required-PR has Implications
      • what about backport policy?
        • prob OK, for multiple reasons
  • https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/issues/3368
    • can we make this a prio-list? - yes

Pending AIs

  • [bmbouter] Analytics process needs to be in our developer docs
  • [dkliban] CodeQL issues opened
  • zero-downtime actions
    • AI: [bmbouter] open a doc-issue
    • AI: [bmbouter] write up plugin docs for this
  • ppicka is leaving us :’(
    • AI: [bmbouter] to remove from mtg invite
    • AI: [team] move ppicka to Contributor
  • settings controlled by semver
    • AI: [x9c4] open thread in discourse
    • AI: [all] revisit and confirm at next mtg
  • AI: [team] get 3427 reviewed so we can merge no later than Fri
1 Like
#63

FYI I gave write perms to Lubos as well, he is part of pytest group.

1 Like