14:31:32 <dkliban> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2016-05-25 14:31:32 <dkliban> #info dkliban has joined triage 14:31:33 <pulpbot> Meeting started Wed May 25 14:31:32 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dkliban. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:31:33 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:31:33 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2016_05_25' 14:31:33 <pulpbot> dkliban has joined triage 14:31:47 <pcreech> #info pcreech has joined triage 14:31:47 <pcreech> !here 14:31:47 <pulpbot> pcreech has joined triage 14:31:53 <mhrivnak> !here 14:31:53 <mhrivnak> #info mhrivnak has joined triage 14:31:54 <pulpbot> mhrivnak has joined triage 14:32:07 <ttereshc> !here 14:32:07 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage 14:32:08 <pulpbot> ttereshc has joined triage 14:32:24 <dkliban> it looks like we have a quorum 14:32:25 <dalley> quick noob question from the intern: where are these bugs located? I don't see them on pulp/pulp 14:32:39 <mhrivnak> great questions! https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp_rpm/issues?query_id=30 14:32:40 <dalley> issues** 14:32:41 <pulpbot> Title: Un-Triaged Bugs - RPM Support - Pulp (at pulp.plan.io) 14:32:42 <dkliban> dalley: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=30 14:32:44 <pulpbot> Title: Un-Triaged Bugs - Pulp (at pulp.plan.io) 14:32:47 <ipanova> !here 14:32:47 <ipanova> #info ipanova has joined triage 14:32:48 <pulpbot> ipanova has joined triage 14:32:54 <mhrivnak> oops, dkliban 's link is better. :) 14:33:03 <dkliban> !issue 1944 14:33:03 <dkliban> #topic YumMetadataFile copy does not save its new storage_path - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1944 14:33:04 <pulpbot> RPM Support Issue #1944 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: High | Severity: High 14:33:05 <pulpbot> YumMetadataFile copy does not save its new storage_path - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1944 14:33:08 <preethi> #info preethi has joined triage 14:33:08 <preethi> !here 14:33:08 <pulpbot> preethi has joined triage 14:33:18 <mhrivnak> This is the source of the "productid" trouble we've seen recently. 14:33:26 <dalley> thank you :) 14:33:40 <mhrivnak> So I think we need to address this bug ASAP. 14:33:42 <dalley> !here 14:33:42 <dalley> #info dalley has joined triage 14:33:43 <pulpbot> dalley has joined triage 14:34:07 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage 14:34:07 <bmbouter> !here 14:34:07 <pulpbot> bmbouter has joined triage 14:34:26 <pcreech> !propose triage High High 14:34:26 <pulpbot> Error: Unknown Severity 14:34:45 <bmbouter> !propose triage High Normal 14:34:45 <pulpbot> Error: Unknown Severity 14:34:49 <pcreech> (since it was e-mailed that it wasn't an immediate release blocker) 14:35:18 <smyers> lowercase :( 14:35:32 <mhrivnak> I suggest high severity. When the problem occurs, it can be a show-stopper for some use cases. 14:35:40 <smyers> There's an open bug for that, but I haven't fixed it yet. So !propose triage high high instead of High High 14:35:57 <pcreech> !propose triage high high 14:35:57 <pcreech> #idea Proposed for #1944: Priority: High, Severity: High 14:35:58 <pulpbot> Proposed for #1944: Priority: High, Severity: High 14:36:13 <mhrivnak> I thiiiiink one of the consequences is that you can't kickstart from a repo if it's suffered from the effects of this bug. 14:36:34 <mhrivnak> I'm good with high/high and we'll put it on this sprint. 14:36:52 <dkliban> +1 14:37:26 <dkliban> any objections to triaging it and going to the next issue? 14:38:12 <dkliban> mhrivnak: are we adding 2.8.4 platform target reelase/ 14:38:14 <dkliban> ? 14:38:24 <mhrivnak> no. 14:38:44 <mhrivnak> We're not making this a release blocker, so 2.8.4 will proceed. 14:38:52 <dkliban> mhrivnak: sounds good 14:38:56 <dkliban> !accept 14:38:56 <dkliban> #agreed Priority: High, Severity: High 14:38:56 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: High 14:38:57 <pulpbot> 12 issues left to triage: 1893, 1926, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1943 14:38:58 <dkliban> #topic pulp_docker does not support Docker < 1.10 with manifests that were published from Docker >= 1.10 - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1893 14:38:58 <pulpbot> Docker Support Issue #1893 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:38:59 <pulpbot> pulp_docker does not support Docker < 1.10 with manifests that were published from Docker >= 1.10 - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1893 14:39:39 <dkliban> let's come back to this one in a bit 14:39:44 <dkliban> i will move us to 1935 14:39:49 <dkliban> !issue 1935 14:39:50 <dkliban> #topic yum_repo_metadata_file model is fundementally flawed and leads to data corruption/loss - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1935 14:39:50 <pulpbot> RPM Support Issue #1935 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Urgent | Severity: High | Target Release: 2.8.4 14:39:51 <pulpbot> yum_repo_metadata_file model is fundementally flawed and leads to data corruption/loss - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1935 14:40:12 <pcreech> we just did this one? 14:40:24 <mhrivnak> This one is fairly broad and required investigation. That investigation led to #1944, the one we just finished looking at. 14:40:25 <dkliban> pcreech: it's related but not the same 14:40:40 <mhrivnak> jcline, any suggestions on how to handle this one now? 14:41:06 <pcreech> ah, my brain not working today it appears 14:41:09 <mhrivnak> One option is it could become a planning task to figure out a better design for storing and managing metadata files. 14:41:30 <bmbouter> let's defer it so that someone can rewrite it 14:41:35 <rpbarlow> ipanova: i don't have an agenda for the pulp in fedora meeting and it's only three of us, so if you guys want to make it short and sweet that's fine with me 14:41:55 <mhrivnak> I'm ok with deferring, but can we reduce the priority at least? 14:41:57 <jcline> remodel it, I suppose 14:42:04 <mhrivnak> I don't think we have reason to consider it urgent at this point. 14:42:22 <bmbouter> I agree lower than urgent 14:42:29 <bmbouter> High? Medium? 14:42:39 <pcreech> let's keep it as high 14:42:51 <ipanova> rpbarlow: could we postpone it by 15 mins if that is fine with you? pcreech 14:42:53 <dkliban> i think it should be high/high 14:43:01 <pcreech> ipanova: rpbarlow: i'm good with that 14:43:35 <dkliban> !propose triage high high 14:43:35 <dkliban> #idea Proposed for #1935: Priority: High, Severity: High 14:43:35 <pulpbot> Proposed for #1935: Priority: High, Severity: High 14:43:46 <bmbouter> +1 accept 14:43:53 <mhrivnak> I don't feel strongly about the priority. We'll need to take a second look at it regardless after it's changed. 14:43:59 <bmbouter> agreed 14:44:06 <dkliban> alright ... i am accepting 14:44:17 <rpbarlow> ipanova, pcreech: sure, no problem 14:44:32 <dkliban> !accept 14:44:32 <dkliban> #agreed Priority: High, Severity: High 14:44:32 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: High 14:44:34 <pulpbot> 11 issues left to triage: 1893, 1926, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1943 14:44:34 <dkliban> #topic pulp_docker does not support Docker < 1.10 with manifests that were published from Docker >= 1.10 - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1893 14:44:35 <pulpbot> Docker Support Issue #1893 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:44:36 <pulpbot> pulp_docker does not support Docker < 1.10 with manifests that were published from Docker >= 1.10 - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1893 14:45:18 <dkliban> we discussed this issue yesterday. let's mark keep the priority and severity on it so that someone can investigate in near future 14:45:20 <mhrivnak> It seems that we at least need to prioritize investigating this one. 14:45:21 <ipanova> rpbarlow: pcreech thanks a lot 14:45:49 <rpbarlow> +1 investigate 14:46:02 <rpbarlow> i say high priority unknown severity 14:46:09 <rpbarlow> but unknown doesn't exist 14:46:12 <rpbarlow> so med? 14:46:14 <mhrivnak> #idea Proposed for #1893: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:46:14 <mhrivnak> !propose triage high medium 14:46:14 <pulpbot> Proposed for #1893: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:46:30 <ttereshc> should we create a new task for investigation? 14:46:31 <dkliban> that works for me 14:46:50 <dkliban> ttereshc: no ... i think investigation is just part of this issue 14:47:00 <ttereshc> dkliban, ok 14:47:03 <dkliban> any objections to the proposal? 14:47:23 <ttereshc> but when we will need to fix the issue we are going to re-triage it? 14:47:24 <mhrivnak> I agree. If investigation suggest we should re-prioritize, we can re-triage it then. 14:47:30 <ttereshc> ok) 14:47:47 <dkliban> #agreed Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:47:47 <dkliban> !accept 14:47:47 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:47:49 <dkliban> #topic package without epoch in the erratum pkglist is not handled correctly during publish - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1926 14:47:49 <pulpbot> 10 issues left to triage: 1926, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1943 14:47:50 <pulpbot> RPM Support Issue #1926 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:47:51 <pulpbot> package without epoch in the erratum pkglist is not handled correctly during publish - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1926 14:48:38 <dkliban> so is the bug with the fixtures? 14:48:55 <elyezer> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1905 should be fixed by https://github.com/pulp/pulp_packaging/pull/168, makes sense including it to the triage? 14:48:57 <pulpbot> Title: Issue #1905: Streamer SSL cert not added to Pulp's trust store on RHEL 6 - Packaging - Pulp (at pulp.plan.io) 14:49:18 <pcreech> dkliban: it appears so 14:49:47 <dkliban> elyezer: it looks like we have already triaged that issue 14:49:53 <elyezer> thanks 14:50:10 * elyezer needs to learn more about the flags and info on the bug 14:50:40 <elyezer> I see the Triaged == Yes on it 14:50:47 <dkliban> any objections to changing the title of the bug? 14:51:01 <dkliban> so it clearly states that the bug is withthe fixtures? 14:51:06 <ttereshc> how sure are we that there will always be an epoch for the packages in the updateinfo? 14:51:07 <mhrivnak> Let's do it. 14:51:18 <ttereshc> because the consequences are not good( 14:51:34 <mhrivnak> ttereshc, "pretty sure" ;) I couldn't find any, but they might be out there. 14:51:48 <mhrivnak> yum has defensive code to turn a "" into "0" 14:51:59 <mhrivnak> And presumably they didn't add that because of our zoo repo. :) Although you never know! 14:52:23 <ttereshc> mhrivnak, ok :) I will fix just fixtures then 14:52:29 <mhrivnak> My suspicion is that there's a small chance anyone will see a problem with this. 14:53:24 <dkliban> i added comments and updated title 14:53:27 <dkliban> !accept 14:53:27 <pulpbot> No action proposed, nothing to accept. 14:53:42 <mhrivnak> hah 14:54:09 <dkliban> #idea Proposed for #1926: Priority: Normal, Severity: Medium 14:54:09 <dkliban> !propose triage normal medium 14:54:09 <pulpbot> Proposed for #1926: Priority: Normal, Severity: Medium 14:54:13 <dkliban> !accept 14:54:13 <dkliban> #agreed Priority: Normal, Severity: Medium 14:54:13 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Priority: Normal, Severity: Medium 14:54:14 <pulpbot> 9 issues left to triage: 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1943 14:54:15 <dkliban> #topic occasionally unable to browse repos via browser - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1930 14:54:15 <pulpbot> Pulp Issue #1930 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:54:16 <pulpbot> occasionally unable to browse repos via browser - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1930 14:54:43 <dkliban> jcline: have you been able to reproduce this issue? 14:56:10 <dkliban> is normal/medium appropriate or do we want high priority so we can investigate sooner? 14:56:18 <mhrivnak> I think high. 14:56:24 <mhrivnak> It's a small thing, but it looks bad. 14:56:33 <dkliban> agreed 14:56:35 <pcreech> this issue should be resolved by 189? (that's on this sprint) 14:56:48 <dkliban> pcreech: link/> 14:56:49 <dkliban> ? 14:57:04 <pcreech> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/189 14:57:06 <mhrivnak> Oh? I thought that was an addional view, but that the current browsing functionality will remain. 14:57:06 <pulpbot> Title: Story #189: Repoview-like functionality for browsing repositories via the web interface - RPM Support - Pulp (at pulp.plan.io) 14:57:08 <jcline> dkliban, yes, I reproduced it 14:57:14 <smyers> I had a similar thought, but even if it'll be fixed in 2.9 the bug still exists in 2.8 and should be corrected. 14:57:17 <jcline> no, it won't be resolved by 189 14:57:33 <mhrivnak> !propose triage high low 14:57:33 <mhrivnak> #idea Proposed for #1930: Priority: High, Severity: Low 14:57:34 <pulpbot> Proposed for #1930: Priority: High, Severity: Low 14:57:48 <jcline> repoview works for a repo, but not for browsing _to_ the repo 14:58:21 <pcreech> aggre with proposal 14:58:24 <pcreech> agree* 14:58:41 <dkliban> mhrivnak: if the urls being presented are wrong, could we run into problems when syncing one pulp to another? 14:58:45 <pcreech> (2 minute warning) 14:58:55 <mhrivnak> dkliban, I don't think so. 14:59:19 <mhrivnak> pulp doesn't try to access any kind of directory index. 14:59:28 <mhrivnak> katello does, but it uses those "listings" files as the index. 14:59:37 <mhrivnak> So I'm pretty sure this is just for humans. 14:59:57 <dkliban> !accept 14:59:57 <dkliban> #agreed Priority: High, Severity: Low 14:59:58 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: Low 14:59:59 <dkliban> #topic FieldDoesNotExist: The field '_rpm_references' does not exist on the document 'Errata' - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1931 14:59:59 <pulpbot> 8 issues left to triage: 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1943 15:00:00 <pulpbot> RPM Support Issue #1931 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: High | Severity: High 15:00:01 <pulpbot> FieldDoesNotExist: The field '_rpm_references' does not exist on the document 'Errata' - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1931 15:00:10 <dkliban> this will be the last issue we triage today 15:00:36 <bmbouter> this is on a sprint and should be High High 15:00:36 <dkliban> we will continue on Friday with the rest of the issues 15:00:44 <mhrivnak> Is this blocking 2.8.4? 15:00:50 <mhrivnak> should it? 15:01:45 <dkliban> it sounds like a regression 15:01:51 <bmbouter> it's a regression since 2.8.0 15:02:18 <bmbouter> I don't think it should block 2.8.4 but it would be great if someone took it as assigned 15:02:27 <mhrivnak> oops, I think I was looking at the wrong issue. 15:02:33 <mhrivnak> I thought this was on 2.8.4, but I see it's not. 15:02:42 <mhrivnak> I agree it should not block 2.8.4 15:02:49 <dkliban> but we should fix this soon 15:03:00 <dkliban> hopefully for 2.8.5 15:03:00 <mhrivnak> !propose triage high high 15:03:00 <mhrivnak> #idea Proposed for #1931: Priority: High, Severity: High 15:03:01 <pulpbot> Proposed for #1931: Priority: High, Severity: High 15:03:14 <bmbouter> I don't know how to accept but, yes 15:03:15 <dkliban> any objections? 15:03:18 <ttereshc> +1 15:03:22 <dkliban> #agreed Priority: High, Severity: High 15:03:22 <dkliban> !accept 15:03:22 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: High 15:03:23 <dkliban> #topic KeyError: '\xff\xff\xff\xff\xd8\xec2\x05' - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1932 15:03:24 <pulpbot> 7 issues left to triage: 1932, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1943 15:03:25 <pulpbot> RPM Support Issue #1932 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: High 15:03:26 <pulpbot> KeyError: '\xff\xff\xff\xff\xd8\xec2\x05' - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/1932 15:03:28 <dkliban> i am stopping triage now 15:03:36 <dkliban> we will continue on Friday 15:03:40 <bmbouter> very good 15:03:43 <dkliban> !stop 15:03:43 <pulpbot> Error: "stop" is not a valid command. 15:03:47 <dkliban> !end 15:03:47 <dkliban> #endmeeting