15:10:43 <amoralej> #startmeeting RDO meeting - 2016-12-21
15:10:43 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 21 15:10:43 2016 UTC.  The chair is amoralej. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:10:43 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:10:43 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting_-_2016-12-21'
15:10:44 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Dec 21 15:10:43 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is amoralej. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:10:45 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:10:48 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting___2016_12_21'
15:10:53 <amoralej> sorry for the delay
15:11:00 <dmsimard> \o
15:11:03 <amoralej> #topic roll call
15:11:09 <jpena> o/
15:11:18 <rbowen> Oh, I thought we had canceled for today. Oops.
15:11:19 <number80> o/
15:11:21 <rbowen> o/
15:11:32 <amoralej> #chair dmsimard jpena rbowen number80
15:11:32 <zodbot> Current chairs: amoralej dmsimard jpena number80 rbowen
15:11:33 <openstack> Current chairs: amoralej dmsimard jpena number80 rbowen
15:11:51 <amoralej> let's start with first topic
15:12:00 <amoralej> #topic     New package review process clarifications
15:12:09 <amoralej> who added that?
15:12:13 <jpena> I did it
15:12:26 <amoralej> go for it jpena
15:12:32 <amoralej> #info https://www.rdoproject.org/documentation/rdo-packaging/#how-to-add-a-new-package-to-rdo-trunk
15:12:45 <jpena> so in https://www.rdoproject.org/documentation/rdo-packaging/#how-to-add-a-new-package-to-rdo-trunk we have a process, where we start by opening a bz, and then open the rdoinfo review and the rest
15:12:47 <amoralej> #info outline identifying missing docs https://review.rdoproject.org/etherpad/p/RDO-Documentation
15:12:56 <trown> o/
15:13:03 <amoralej> #info vitrage packaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342987 what need to be done to move it forward (eyalb)
15:13:27 <jpena> if I understood it correctly during some discussions with apevec, we agreed that the rdoinfo / initial spec review could be done in gerrit without the need to approve the bz
15:14:03 <jpena> however, number80 disagrees, so I'd love to get some clarification (and update the docs with the result)
15:14:13 <amoralej> i usually don't create the repos until bz is approved
15:14:21 <amoralej> or very close to approved
15:15:05 <amoralej> so, at the time of merging first rdoinfo review, package review bz is approved, that was my understanding
15:15:14 <jpena> I'm not aware of the legal ramifications, but being able to have the spec tested by DLRN and reviewed in Gerrit are really appealing
15:15:32 <jpena> they simplify the review process a lot
15:16:03 <jpena> so we could approve the bz once the spec review is done, and always before setting the tags in rdoinfo
15:16:05 <amoralej> yes, but if the approval process is in bz, i think it make sense that the discussion is in bz also, no in gerrit
15:16:38 <amoralej> in that case we would have to reference the gerrit review from bugzilla
15:16:39 <chandankumar> \o/
15:16:47 <amoralej> #chair trown chandankumar
15:16:48 <zodbot> Current chairs: amoralej chandankumar dmsimard jpena number80 rbowen trown
15:17:03 <jschlueter> 0/
15:17:15 <amoralej> #chair jschlueter
15:17:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: amoralej chandankumar dmsimard jpena jschlueter number80 rbowen trown
15:17:16 <rasca> amoralej, the image is this one http://artifacts.ci.centos.org/artifacts/rdo/images/master/delorean/current-tripleo/stable/overcloud-full.tar which I see was produced yesterday
15:17:28 <rbowen> The missing docs doc is really helpful. Should we go ahead and start creating stub docs for any of those?
15:17:30 <jpena> amoralej: we always have a final round with the approved spec and srpm in the bz, so we can run fedora-review on it
15:17:40 * apevec is on different meeting...
15:18:04 <apevec> jpena, where is that disagreement and about which part?
15:18:34 <jpena> apevec: it's whether we should wait for rdo-approve+ in bugzilla before creating the project in rdoinfo
15:18:37 <rbowen> If we could create stub docs, and clearly tag them in a "to be written" kind of way, it would make it easy to script some process of asking folks to help with the writing.
15:18:53 <weshay> o/
15:18:54 <rbowen> (Sorry, I'm being pulled several different ways right now.)
15:19:07 <amoralej> #chair weshay
15:19:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: amoralej chandankumar dmsimard jpena jschlueter number80 rbowen trown weshay
15:19:29 <apevec> jpena, if we block on that then we cannot use gerrit for initial review, that was the point
15:19:31 <jpena> rbowen: I think amoralej mixed two topics in one, we should cover missing docs as the next topic
15:19:42 <apevec> we can block on + before removing under-review tag
15:19:45 * trown is confused
15:20:01 <amoralej> #undo
15:20:01 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by amoralej at 15:13:03 : vitrage packaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342987 what need to be done to move it forward (eyalb)
15:20:11 <jschlueter> having the review up and being able to use normal git review -d <id> is really useful when reviewing new spec
15:20:12 <amoralej> #undo
15:20:12 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by amoralej at 15:12:47 : outline identifying missing docs https://review.rdoproject.org/etherpad/p/RDO-Documentation
15:20:18 <jpena> apevec: that's what I understood as well, but it's not documented and not all of us seem to be on the same page
15:20:21 <rbowen> jpena: Oh, ok. I was confused.
15:20:35 <amoralej> my fault rbowen, sorry
15:20:59 <trown> how do gerrit reviews for new package get created?
15:21:42 <amoralej> users create the reviews against rdoinfo project trown
15:22:08 <jpena> trown: first, we create a review for rdoinfo, tagging the package as "under-review" so it doesn't get built by DLRN. Someone (us) creates the project in review.rdo, then approves the rdoinfo change. And then, we can open an initial spec review using the distgit project
15:22:56 <amoralej> so, iiuc, we can do the spec discussion in gerrit and once we have something that can be approved, we add it to the bz and do formal review in bz
15:22:58 <amoralej> is it?
15:23:23 <jpena> if we all agree, I think that's the best approach
15:23:33 <jpena> but we're missing number80's opinion
15:23:50 <trown> I think this is not at all clear... I got asked to review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373821 by radez yesterday... seems like there is missing step of rdoinfo review?
15:23:55 <amoralej> no problem from my side, just adding a reference to the gerrit review in the bz
15:24:04 <amoralej> would be convenient
15:24:22 <trown> ya, I am +1 to doing reviews in gerrit... bugzilla is an awful review tool
15:24:24 <jpena> trown: that's a Fedora package review
15:24:32 <jpena> it follows the fedora process
15:24:37 <trown> k
15:25:03 <trown> jpena: but it has RDO-OCATA in "Blocks"
15:25:09 * jpena feels like a bureaucrat, all the time talking about "the process"
15:25:16 <amoralej> number80 ^ wdyt?
15:25:35 <jpena> trown: it's a requirement for another package (congress, I think). So once it's part of Fedora we'll rebuild it in CBS
15:26:00 <number80> ah sorry
15:26:09 <trown> jpena: cool, it is deps not dlrn... sorry for the noise
15:26:33 <number80> actually, Dan needs to create a new ticket
15:26:44 <number80> reviewee is creator of the ticket, assignee is the reviewer
15:27:39 <trown> number80: k, I think I muddied the actual discussion here
15:28:05 <rasca> amoralej, you still tjere?
15:28:05 <trown> that being whether for packages we will track with dlrn, if we can do package review in gerrit
15:28:14 <amoralej> main question is doing initial spec review on gerrit before having approved the bz number80
15:28:18 <trown> rasca: it is rdo meeting
15:28:19 <amoralej> we are in a meeting rasca
15:28:25 <amoralej> i'll back to you later
15:30:47 <amoralej> i'm not sure if i'm explaining it right, number80, sorry
15:30:48 <apevec> amoralej, that's not a question, we really want/need that :)
15:31:00 <apevec> reviewing in bz comments is just soo bad
15:31:04 <amoralej> ok, then let's put the aggrement
15:31:33 <jpena> what if I propose a change to the packaging page, and we discuss the details there?
15:31:44 <apevec> ack
15:31:44 <amoralej> #agreed to do initial spec review in review.r.o before having the package review bz approved
15:31:47 <jpena> I mean https://www.rdoproject.org/documentation/rdo-packaging/#how-to-add-a-new-package-to-rdo-trunk
15:31:57 <apevec> send docs PR and we review it there
15:32:12 <amoralej> #action jpena to propose a change in the process in the packaging page to discuss in the PR
15:32:17 <amoralej> ok, let's move on
15:32:32 <amoralej> #topic outline identifying missing docs https://review.rdoproject.org/etherpad/p/RDO-Documentation
15:32:45 <amoralej> rbowen, now it's for you
15:33:04 <rbowen> I believe jpena made that document. I'm just an avid supporter of it.
15:33:05 <apevec> that outline was actually from jpena
15:33:25 <apevec> I just pasted as support for the previous topic
15:33:36 <rbowen> Identifying docs that need to be written is a huge help in encouraging people to write them.
15:33:59 <jpena> rbowen: if we could get stubs in the web, it would be great and we could start filling the gaps
15:34:25 <rbowen> Ok, I'll try to figure out where these would fit in the site structure, and start creating those docs.
15:35:12 <amoralej> some of that info is distributed among blogs, etc... having it in a more structured way will help
15:35:33 <jpena> specially for people who don't work 100% of their time with RDO :)
15:36:00 <amoralej> #action rbowen to start creating doc stubs according to structure in https://review.rdoproject.org/etherpad/p/RDO-Documentation
15:36:07 <rbowen> +1
15:36:33 <amoralej> #topic vitrage packaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342987 what need to be done to move it forward (eyalb)
15:36:47 <eyalb> thats me
15:36:50 <amoralej> #info feedback from mrunge in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342987#c17 also see c15
15:36:51 <apevec> so that's kind of related to the first topic
15:37:07 <apevec> eyalb, have you seen reply from mrunge in c17 ?
15:37:24 <eyalb> no
15:37:49 <apevec> but discussed in the 1. topic we can iterate on spec changes in the gerrit review
15:37:57 <eyalb> I mean I didnt understand what need to be done
15:37:59 <apevec> it will be more convenient then in bz comment
15:38:37 <imcsk8> o/
15:38:38 <apevec> mrunge, ^ can you help explaining your c17 in vitrage bz ?
15:39:06 <apevec> looks like master is already good?
15:39:36 <eyalb> also the vitrage-dashbord is ready
15:39:41 <apevec> so I'd say let's proceed with project creation and do initial spec review in review.rdo
15:39:58 <apevec> eyalb, which bz# is that?
15:40:37 <eyalb> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390608
15:41:11 <amoralej> it's strange that https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/1504/ is merged but repos are not created
15:41:50 <apevec> amoralej, yeah, we don't have automation for project creation yet
15:42:21 <apevec> jpena, ^ let's proceed with project creation
15:42:47 <amoralej> i can take care of creating the proyect for vitrage so eyalb can send an initial spec, ok?
15:42:49 <apevec> eyalb, once that's done, we can create initial review in gerrit
15:42:54 <apevec> amoralej, ack
15:43:12 <amoralej> and for vitrage-dashboard we'll need a new review to rdoinfo
15:43:26 <eyalb> there is a link to the spec in the bz
15:43:45 <amoralej> #action amoralej to create vitrage project
15:44:07 <apevec> eyalb, ok, I'll provide steps how to create initial spec review in gerrit
15:44:16 <apevec> ...and we'll add that to the docs
15:44:24 <apevec> as discussed earlier
15:44:28 <eyalb> I will add a vitrage-dashbord to the rdoinfo
15:44:43 <amoralej> ok
15:45:05 <amoralej> #action eyalb to send a review to create vitrage-dashboard project
15:45:20 <amoralej> i think plan is more clear now for vitrage?
15:45:49 <apevec> vitrageclient is already done iirc ?
15:45:54 <amoralej> eyyes
15:45:55 <amoralej> yes
15:46:51 <amoralej> #topic open floor
15:47:04 <amoralej> any other topic you'd like to bring?
15:47:34 <jpena> Quick one: the DLRN API review has been updated, covering the latest comments. If you have some time, https://review.rdoproject.org/r/3838
15:48:34 <amoralej> apevec, would it be useful to do some session about all issues related to 7.3 release with CentOS team?
15:48:47 <amoralej> so we can improve on next release
15:51:03 <apevec> amoralej, yeah, not sure which venue would work, maybe CBS meeting on Monday?
15:51:08 <apevec> rbowen, number80 ^ wdyt
15:51:30 <apevec> I guess next Monday is probably cancelled
15:51:36 <rbowen> Possibly, however, a LOT of people are out for the next few weeks.
15:51:50 <apevec> yeah, so early Jan then
15:51:59 <apevec> Jan 2 is also out
15:52:00 <rbowen> Would make Monday 9th the next likely date.
15:52:05 <apevec> yep
15:52:21 <apevec> amoralej, add it on agenda, not sure where that is
15:52:29 <amoralej> ok, i'll look for it
15:52:39 <jpena> btw, when are we having the next meeting?
15:52:52 <jpena> January 4 or 11?
15:52:57 <apevec> good question
15:52:59 <rbowen> https://www.centos.org/community/calendar/#community-buildsystem-infrastructure-meeting doesn't link to an agenda ...
15:53:08 <rbowen> I'll be out on Jan 4, but I expect some people will be here.
15:53:16 <amoralej> i'm on pto on 4th
15:53:38 <apevec> let's keep Jan 4, I'll take chairing
15:53:50 <apevec> to keep the lights on :)
15:54:34 <apevec> that solves the standing last topic
15:54:38 <amoralej> #info meeting on Dec 28 is canceled
15:54:55 <amoralej> #info apevec will chair next meeting on Jan 4th
15:55:06 <apevec> #info happy holidays everyone!
15:55:36 <rbowen> Thanks! You too!
15:55:45 <amoralej> happy xmas to rdo-ers!!!
15:56:09 <amoralej> so i think we can end the meeting if there is no more topics
15:56:15 <amoralej> 3
15:56:16 <amoralej> 2
15:56:17 <amoralej> 1
15:56:21 <eyalb> bye
15:56:21 <amoralej> #endmeeting