14:30:19 <ttereshc> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2017-03-28 14:30:19 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage 14:30:19 <pulpbot> Meeting started Tue Mar 28 14:30:19 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttereshc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:30:19 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:30:19 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2017_03_28' 14:30:19 <pulpbot> ttereshc has joined triage 14:30:29 <bmbouter> smyers: maybe a specific proposal of where to store the file 14:30:30 <ipanova> !here 14:30:30 <ipanova> #info ipanova has joined triage 14:30:30 <pulpbot> ipanova has joined triage 14:30:33 <bmbouter> and format 14:30:35 <bmbouter> !here 14:30:35 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage 14:30:36 <pulpbot> bmbouter has joined triage 14:30:37 <bmbouter> ok triage 14:30:37 <bizhang> !here 14:30:37 <bizhang> #info bizhang has joined triage 14:30:37 <pulpbot> bizhang has joined triage 14:30:39 <mhrivnak> !here 14:30:39 <mhrivnak> #info mhrivnak has joined triage 14:30:40 <pulpbot> mhrivnak has joined triage 14:30:43 <ttereshc> !next 14:30:45 <daviddavis> !here 14:30:45 <pulpbot> 7 issues left to triage: 2664, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2669, 2670, 2671 14:30:45 <ttereshc> #topic Workers Canceling Tasks on Startup Fail if the Broker is Down - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2664 14:30:45 <daviddavis> #info daviddavis has joined triage 14:30:46 <pulpbot> Pulp Issue #2664 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:30:47 <pulpbot> Workers Canceling Tasks on Startup Fail if the Broker is Down - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2664 14:30:48 <pulpbot> daviddavis has joined triage 14:30:49 <dalley> !here 14:30:49 <dalley> #info dalley has joined triage 14:30:49 <pulpbot> dalley has joined triage 14:31:10 <ichimonji10> elyezer: Yes, I will 14:31:18 <ichimonji10> I'm just putting out a (figurative) fire right now 14:31:35 <bmbouter> I plan to propose this for the next sprint but not this one 14:31:39 <dalley> bmbouter: I will note that it is the exact same traceback (it seems) as I get with the broker reconnect issue 14:31:40 <mhrivnak> Is this a reasonable workaround? 1) start the broker 2) try starting the workers again 14:31:41 <bmbouter> I'll reraise it at sprint planning 14:31:50 <bmbouter> interesting 14:32:05 <dalley> the 2nd half is the same, at least 14:32:07 <bmbouter> yes that is the workaround 14:32:25 <ttereshc> !propose accept 14:32:25 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2664: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:32:26 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2664: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:32:27 <dalley> once it gets inside Kombu / Qpid 14:32:28 <elyezer> ichimonji10: no need to rush, look it when you are "relaxing" :) 14:32:30 <mhrivnak> +1 accept 14:32:49 <smyers> +1 14:33:08 <ttereshc> !accept 14:33:08 <ttereshc> #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:33:08 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:33:10 <ttereshc> #topic API documentation doesn't explain how to manage tags - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2665 14:33:10 <pulpbot> 6 issues left to triage: 2665, 2666, 2667, 2669, 2670, 2671 14:33:11 <pulpbot> Docker Support Issue #2665 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:33:12 <pulpbot> API documentation doesn't explain how to manage tags - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2665 14:34:18 <ttereshc> add to current sprint? 14:34:34 <daviddavis> +1 14:34:44 <ipanova> +1 14:34:46 <ttereshc> qe is somewhat blocked on that, right? 14:34:49 <mhrivnak> I'm hesitant to add anything, but this is blocking QE testing, so I'm good with that. 14:35:06 <jortel> !here 14:35:06 <jortel> #info jortel has joined triage 14:35:07 <pulpbot> jortel has joined triage 14:35:08 <bmbouter> is it blocking QE? 14:35:09 <ttereshc> !propose other normal/medium add to sprint 14:35:09 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2665: normal/medium add to sprint 14:35:09 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2665: normal/medium add to sprint 14:35:13 <smyers> I doesn't seem to be blocking, just super annoying 14:35:17 <smyers> I'm -1 for adding to sprint 14:35:19 <preethi> ttereshc: yes that is blocking docker tests passiing 14:35:49 <mhrivnak> Is this not blocking QE? 14:35:55 <preethi> it is 14:36:03 <smyers> There's this little guy, though: "It's also hard to fix the tests that have broken in 2.13 (due to an backwards-incompatible change - is that OK?)" < Nope 14:36:10 <smyers> Is there a bug for that change coming up? :) 14:36:39 <smyers> Pardon the digression, though 14:36:49 <ttereshc> we can decide later if we want to add it to sprint or not 14:36:53 <ttereshc> !propose accept 14:36:54 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2665: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:36:55 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2665: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:37:12 <mhrivnak> I think we want QE testing before we do a beta if we can get it. 14:37:26 <mhrivnak> And that's currently scheduled about 2 weeks from now, at the beginning of the next sprint. 14:37:47 <bmbouter> preethi says yes its blocking but it still seems unclear with what smyers says 14:37:49 <mhrivnak> So I think our options are: produce docs ASAP so they can test it, or wait and accept that it won't get tested. 14:37:56 <bmbouter> agreed 14:38:20 <mhrivnak> I think we should get the docs done ASAP, since we really should have done them with the original work anyway. 14:38:36 <smyers> But the workaround in issue seems to be "steal what pulp-admin -vv shows and do that in a testing client" 14:38:50 <ipanova> mhrivnak: i don't this it blocks qe 14:38:56 <ipanova> they can proceed to test 14:38:57 <smyers> Crappy? Yep. Urgent to fix? Eeehhhhh 14:39:13 <bmbouter> ichimonji10, elyezer: ^? 14:39:19 <ipanova> this rfe was written for cli usage abd it was tested against cli usage 14:39:28 <ipanova> daviddavis: can tell more about this ^ 14:39:47 <mhrivnak> We could work around the problem by spending time explaining it through other means to QE. 14:39:48 <ipanova> i understand that cli is based on api, but at this point testing is not blocked 14:39:49 <ipanova> imho 14:40:29 <daviddavis> it would be nice to address the point about passing the tag name twice before the release 14:40:39 <ttereshc> !propose other normal/medium add to sprint 14:40:39 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2665: normal/medium add to sprint 14:40:39 <ipanova> so i kinda agree with smyers 14:40:39 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2665: normal/medium add to sprint 14:40:45 <daviddavis> I don't know if it's possible to only pass the tag name once but it's worth investigating 14:40:57 <ttereshc> let's add to sprint and see if we have time to address it 14:41:13 <bmbouter> the challenge is that pulp3 is the priority 14:41:13 <daviddavis> +1 14:41:31 <ichimonji10> I can write tests for this issue if some dev(s) can sit down with me and answer some questions as I write tests. 14:41:44 <ichimonji10> About the backwards-incompatible change: basically, files are now served at different locations. 14:42:03 <ichimonji10> So any code that tries to fetch e.g. manifests will break. 14:42:11 <mhrivnak> ichimonji10, I'm not sure that's actually backwards-incompatible, but we can talk about it. 14:42:20 <ichimonji10> Well, there's no _href paths. 14:42:32 <ichimonji10> So there's no way for code that currently works with the docker plugin to still work. 14:42:35 <mhrivnak> better to discuss that aspect post-triage. 14:42:38 <ichimonji10> Sure. 14:42:45 <ttereshc> everyone agree on normal/medium? 14:43:06 <bizhang> +1 14:43:07 <mhrivnak> If we don't either 1) document it, or 2) explain it in-person, QE won't be able to test this as far as I'm understanding. Is that right? 14:43:11 <ipanova> agree on normal/medium 14:43:58 <ttereshc> !propose other normal/medium explain to qe or add to sprint 14:43:58 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2665: normal/medium explain to qe or add to sprint 14:43:58 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2665: normal/medium explain to qe or add to sprint 14:44:12 <ttereshc> !accept 14:44:12 <ttereshc> #agreed normal/medium explain to qe or add to sprint 14:44:12 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: normal/medium explain to qe or add to sprint 14:44:14 <pulpbot> 5 issues left to triage: 2666, 2667, 2669, 2670, 2671 14:44:14 <ttereshc> #topic Rsync publish for RPM repo fails to run in fast forward mode - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2666 14:44:15 <pulpbot> RPM Support Issue #2666 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:44:16 <pulpbot> Rsync publish for RPM repo fails to run in fast forward mode - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2666 14:45:14 <ichimonji10> mhrivnak: You're right. 14:45:24 <ichimonji10> And I'm happy with either solution. 14:45:31 <mhrivnak> ichimonji10, thanks. 14:45:46 <ichimonji10> Thank *you*. 14:45:57 <bmbouter> we should accept 2666 as is and add to sprint 14:46:09 <ipanova> agree 14:46:11 <bmbouter> we need 2666 on sprint so that RCM can consumer Pulp 14:46:16 <bmbouter> s/consumer/consume/ 14:46:33 <ttereshc> !propose other normal/medium add to sprint 14:46:33 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2666: normal/medium add to sprint 14:46:34 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2666: normal/medium add to sprint 14:47:12 <mhrivnak> I'm not understanding the bug. 14:47:31 <ttereshc> publish is full instead of being incremental 14:47:34 <ttereshc> I think 14:48:15 <dkliban> yeah 14:48:18 <mhrivnak> Ah. So it just takes longer than it should? 14:48:21 <dkliban> yes 14:48:37 <ttereshc> and RCM marked it as blocker for them 14:48:54 <dkliban> i think we should add it to the sprint 14:48:58 <dkliban> or at least next sprint 14:49:09 <mhrivnak> If it landed in 2.13.1 instead of 2.13.0, would that still be acceptable? 14:49:16 <dkliban> mhrivnak: yes 14:49:21 <dkliban> i just want us to fix it soon 14:49:26 <mhrivnak> Given that, I'd wait for next sprint. 14:49:33 <mhrivnak> and prioritize it there. 14:49:33 <dkliban> bmbouter: do you care? 14:49:39 <ttereshc> it's probably an easy fix... 14:49:54 <bmbouter> I +1 to adding to the current sprint but that's just me 14:50:07 <bmbouter> I +0 adding to next sprint 14:50:17 <ipanova> bmbouter: haha 14:50:38 <ipanova> i love this +0 and -0 14:50:41 <bmbouter> I just think of RCM tasks as preempting pulp3 work 14:50:56 <ipanova> +1 for current sprint 14:51:02 <bmbouter> mhrivnak I defer to your decision 14:51:22 <ipanova> i guess we need already to finish this long task to enable rcm to upgrade to vanilla pulp, it's been too long 14:51:27 <mhrivnak> I think there's nothing exceptional or urgent about this circumstance, so we should wait. 14:51:36 <ttereshc> !propose other normal/medium add to next sprint 14:51:36 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2666: normal/medium add to next sprint 14:51:36 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2666: normal/medium add to next sprint 14:51:40 <smyers> I agree with waiting 14:51:59 <ttereshc> !accept 14:51:59 <ttereshc> #agreed normal/medium add to next sprint 14:51:59 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: normal/medium add to next sprint 14:52:00 <pulpbot> 4 issues left to triage: 2667, 2669, 2670, 2671 14:52:01 <ttereshc> #topic Pulp 2.13 RHEL6 Builds Fail on Koji with Error - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2667 14:52:01 <pulpbot> Pulp Issue #2667 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:52:02 <pulpbot> Pulp 2.13 RHEL6 Builds Fail on Koji with Error - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2667 14:53:09 <smyers> Yeah. I have no idea what to do with this one. Easy fix is stop building el6 in nightlies. Unknown difficulty of fix is get them working again. 14:53:50 <bmbouter> upstream doesn't need them so +1 to stopping building 14:54:34 <mhrivnak> Can we stop building just 2.13+ specifically? 14:54:44 <smyers> I can open a task specifically for that that refs this issue and put a PR up today. 14:54:57 <smyers> mhrivnak, stop building nightlies for master? 14:55:15 <mhrivnak> for el6 14:55:17 <mhrivnak> yes 14:55:29 <smyers> Still confused 14:55:42 <smyers> Stop building *all* master nightlies, or just el6 nightlies? 14:55:43 <mhrivnak> Can we continue doing nightlies for 2.12 on el6, but not 2.13 on el6? 14:55:59 <smyers> Maybe! 14:56:18 <ttereshc> maybe skip this issue for now and decide later what we want to do with nightlies? 14:56:31 <dkliban> +1 to ttereshc 14:56:40 <mhrivnak> Seems reasonable. 14:56:44 <ttereshc> !skip 14:56:46 <ttereshc> #topic Scheduled calls support needs to be patched in F26 and rawhide - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2669 14:56:46 <pulpbot> 3 issues left to triage: 2669, 2670, 2671 14:56:47 <pulpbot> External Issue #2669 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:56:48 <pulpbot> Scheduled calls support needs to be patched in F26 and rawhide - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2669 14:57:00 <bizhang> Should this be a task instead? 14:57:12 <mhrivnak> yes. 14:57:19 <ttereshc> +1 to task 14:57:28 <ttereshc> !propose other convert to task 14:57:28 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2669: convert to task 14:57:29 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2669: convert to task 14:57:46 <ttereshc> next sprint? not the current one? 14:58:11 <bmbouter> not the current 14:58:20 <ttereshc> good :) 14:58:22 <mhrivnak> Sounds good. 14:58:24 <ttereshc> !accept 14:58:24 <ttereshc> #agreed convert to task 14:58:24 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: convert to task 14:58:26 <ttereshc> #topic Broker Reconnect Support needs to be patched in F26 and Rawhide - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2670 14:58:26 <pulpbot> 2 issues left to triage: 2670, 2671 14:58:27 <pulpbot> External Issue #2670 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:58:28 <pulpbot> Broker Reconnect Support needs to be patched in F26 and Rawhide - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2670 14:58:28 <mhrivnak> same for remaining 2 issues? 14:58:40 <bmbouter> same for this one 14:58:52 <bmbouter> and the last one too I would say 14:58:58 <ttereshc> !propose other convert to task 14:58:58 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2670: convert to task 14:58:59 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2670: convert to task 14:59:06 <ttereshc> !accept 14:59:06 <ttereshc> #agreed convert to task 14:59:06 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: convert to task 14:59:07 <pulpbot> No issues to triage. 14:59:15 <bizhang> I preempted the last one :) 14:59:22 <ttereshc> aha! 14:59:24 <ttereshc> :) 14:59:24 <smyers> heh 14:59:27 <smyers> sneaky! 14:59:29 <ttereshc> !end 14:59:29 <ttereshc> #endmeeting