14:30:27 #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2016-06-21 14:30:27 #info asmacdo has joined triage 14:30:27 Meeting started Tue Jun 21 14:30:27 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is asmacdo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:30:27 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:30:27 The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2016_06_21' 14:30:27 asmacdo has joined triage 14:30:32 !here 14:30:32 #info bmbouter has joined triage 14:30:33 bmbouter has joined triage 14:30:55 !here 14:30:55 #info dkliban has joined triage 14:30:56 dkliban has joined triage 14:31:07 !here 14:31:07 #info ttereshc has joined triage 14:31:08 ttereshc has joined triage 14:31:24 !here 14:31:24 #info pcreech has joined triage 14:31:24 pcreech has joined triage 14:31:26 !next 14:31:27 6 issues left to triage: 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2027 14:31:27 #topic Cannot provide multiple checksums when uploading an erratum - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2020 14:31:28 RPM Support Issue #2020 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:31:28 Cannot provide multiple checksums when uploading an erratum - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2020 14:32:21 it sounds important 14:32:42 jluza: do you ever upload errata that have multiple checksum types specified? 14:32:49 !here 14:32:49 #info ipanova has joined triage 14:32:49 ipanova has joined triage 14:32:57 !here 14:32:57 #info dalley has joined triage 14:32:58 dalley has joined triage 14:34:10 i am not sure if this issue should be high priority 14:34:25 me neither 14:34:30 I'm trying to find the docs 14:34:40 dkliban, hmm, I think we had errata like that 14:35:00 bmbouter: i think we should make this high priority 14:35:24 if pulp supports it then ok, but does pulp support it? 14:35:32 errata can reference packages in multiple repos 14:35:44 and the two repos might have different checksums 14:35:55 so i think it's a valid case ... 14:36:12 ichimonji10: did you try using two checksums because the docs on errata tool say that is possible? 14:36:35 the data structure there looks odd to me. 14:36:37 it could also be an rfe 14:36:37 dkliban: internal? 14:36:43 No, it's not an RFE 14:36:47 And it's not theoretical 14:36:52 It's happening right now in production 14:37:19 a list where the first element is the checksum type and the second is the checksum doesn't seem right 14:37:29 Aye. I agree it's silly 14:37:47 There's other stilly things about the erratum structure 14:37:56 I'm with you there. 14:37:56 so there are existing errata who have multiple checksums specified this way? 14:38:00 bmbouter: yes. 14:38:05 and you're saying Pulp needs to do this because content does this 14:38:34 bmbouter: Sorry, accidentally quit and lost that last bit 14:38:46 ichimonji10: a link to an errata which pulp cannot handle as an upload would be good 14:39:09 bmbouter: I'll leave a private comment? 14:39:13 that is good 14:39:51 anyone have ideas for priority/severity? 14:40:10 !propose triage high medium 14:40:10 #idea Proposed for #2020: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:40:11 Proposed for #2020: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:40:30 +1 14:40:56 !accept 14:40:56 #agreed Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:40:56 Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:40:58 #topic Pulp drops "release" field from uploaded erraum - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2021 14:40:58 5 issues left to triage: 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2027 14:40:58 RPM Support Issue #2021 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:40:59 Pulp drops "release" field from uploaded erraum - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2021 14:41:32 I think this can be traiged as-is 14:41:48 This is another one of those "it's happening in production right now" issues. 14:42:17 ichimonji10, is it only in 2.9? 14:42:23 ttereshc: 2.8 and 2.9 14:42:38 Same with issue 2020 14:42:48 ok 14:42:53 !propose accept 14:42:53 #idea Proposed for #2021: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:42:54 Proposed for #2021: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:43:02 sounds like low severity to me 14:43:20 not low severity ... errata are being published without a release field for the package 14:43:28 sometimes the only thing that changes is the release field 14:43:47 if we are going for correctness, we are getting it wrong here 14:43:57 ah, i thought there were 2 release fields, and it was using one but not the other 14:43:58 dkliban, I think it is realese field for the erratum 14:44:35 not for the package 14:44:40 ichimonji10: is it packages release field or erratum release field? 14:45:08 i think it's the package that is part of the erratum that has the release field missing 14:45:30 dkliban: The erratum['unit_metadata']['release'] field 14:45:38 The one with a value of "0" in the example given 14:45:43 gotcha 14:45:48 ok ... let's accept as is then 14:45:53 agreed 14:45:58 !accept 14:45:58 #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:45:59 Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:45:59 #topic Error while login in pulp-admin - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2023 14:46:00 4 issues left to triage: 2023, 2024, 2025, 2027 14:46:00 Pulp Issue #2023 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Low 14:46:01 Error while login in pulp-admin - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2023 14:46:35 i don't even know what juicer is 14:46:41 i think we should ask for more info 14:47:10 perhaps juicer's pymongo requirement is incompatible with pulp's 14:48:23 I can comment on it if we want to skip it 14:48:25 just let me know 14:48:35 bmbouter: please leave a comment and we will not triage it at this time 14:48:43 ok 14:48:45 sounds good to me 14:49:03 !propose other bmbouter will leave a comment and we will defer 14:49:03 #idea Proposed for #2023: bmbouter will leave a comment and we will defer 14:49:03 Proposed for #2023: bmbouter will leave a comment and we will defer 14:49:14 !accept 14:49:14 #agreed bmbouter will leave a comment and we will defer 14:49:14 Current proposal accepted: bmbouter will leave a comment and we will defer 14:49:15 3 issues left to triage: 2024, 2025, 2027 14:49:15 #topic Summary listing of RPM repos appears to be broken - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2024 14:49:16 Pulp Issue #2024 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:49:16 Summary listing of RPM repos appears to be broken - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2024 14:51:05 unless this is because he put -vvv, id say this is a pretty clear regression 14:52:18 !propose triage h m 14:52:18 #idea Proposed for #2024: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:52:18 Proposed for #2024: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:52:30 other thoughts? 14:52:41 +1 14:52:51 !accept 14:52:51 #agreed Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:52:52 Current proposal accepted: Priority: High, Severity: Medium 14:52:53 #topic remove_missing option does not work unless repository is updated - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2027 14:52:53 1 issues left to triage: 2027 14:52:53 RPM Support Issue #2027 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:52:54 remove_missing option does not work unless repository is updated - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2027 14:53:23 this one should be a story 14:53:34 i'll update it and we can move on 14:54:10 It skipped #2025? I just edited it to make it a story instead of an issue, maybe that's why 14:54:26 oh ok 14:54:28 !skip 14:54:28 cool 14:54:29 No issues to triage. 14:54:39 did you want to talk about 2025 dkliban ? 14:54:44 yeah I do 14:54:45 We should discuss what the scope of this one should be - whether "active: true|false" is good enough or whether we want something more along the lines of "state: active|inactive|etc." 14:54:50 FYI, 2023 is getting closed as NOTABUG 14:54:50 asmacdo: no ... i wanted to talk about 2027 14:54:50 !issue 2025 14:54:51 #topic View the state ("active", "inactive", etc.) of various pulp processes via the status API - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2025 14:54:51 Pulp Story #2025 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal 14:54:52 View the state ("active", "inactive", etc.) of various pulp processes via the status API - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2025 14:54:57 so we won't see it next week 14:55:20 asmacdo: i wanted to talk about 2027, i thought we were looking at 2025 when i said to skip it 14:55:28 aha 14:55:31 !issue 2027 14:55:32 #topic remove_missing option does not work unless repository is updated - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2027 14:55:32 RPM Support Issue #2027 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:55:32 remove_missing option does not work unless repository is updated - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2027 14:55:41 dalley: let's talk about your story after triage 14:55:54 dkliban: w/r to #2027, #1983 can be updated to include that case 14:55:57 acknowledged 14:56:33 ipanova, so would you like to close 2027 as a dupe and update 1983? 14:57:29 asmacdo: i'd out it as related, because 1971 is similar case 14:57:34 s/out/put 14:59:12 ipanova, do you have a priority proposal 14:59:40 i think this is medium/normal 14:59:47 agree 14:59:55 let's triage it as is 15:00:08 !propose accept 15:00:08 #idea Proposed for #2027: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 15:00:09 Proposed for #2027: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 15:00:26 !accept 15:00:26 #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 15:00:26 Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 15:00:27 awesome 15:00:28 No issues to triage. 15:00:36 and we are done 15:00:41 dkliban, did you want to talk about 2025 before we end? 15:00:49 asmacdo: it's a story 15:00:54 !end 15:00:54 #endmeeting