How does one get these meetings on their calendar and participate? On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:45 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote:
> ## October 27, 2020 > > ### Previous action items > * [ttereshc] follow up on relative_path problem on mailing list > * Done > * [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging > https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737 > * [dkliban] to follow up with bmbouters about fips checks > * [ipanova] send an email to archive PUPS repository and file docs task > * Done > https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2020-October/msg00050.html > * [dkliban] file a task for running tests for multiple plugins in one fips > environment in the installer nightly > > ### Topics > * Tasking system improvements > * orhpan cleanup running in parallel > * bmbouter and ipanova collab on the design > * moved back a week > * resource manager bottleneck > * next step is to do an evaluation of tasking system performance > * Enforce funtional tests in pulp_file > * Add a check in Travis > * filed issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7748 potentially consider > adding option "enforce_tests" to the template instead? > * Commit bit for mdellweg > * 2 required reviews affects release process > * Should we pre-agree that 2 specific people are available for reviews? > * Would excluding release branches from 2 ack be a solution? > * Go back to 1 required review, but opt into asking for 2 reviews for > any significant change? > * pulpbot to approve release PRs? > * For now, decrease # of required ACKs for release branches, designate > reviewers, and improve automation > * pulpcore version in plugin api > * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7624 > * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6671 > * need a volunteer to backport a fix to 3.6 and release it > * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7737 > * pulpcore 3.8.1 - can in include a backwards compatible change to the > plugin API? > * > https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/commit/4063c346b4b75ffe74d2b0a95d650732dfb5ed8e > * settings should not be used in the models fields > * > https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/170/files#diff-1707426fbe1933a12da3490e42f0dbceea79e47f7c883708c0b0cb49755b1d94L383 > * > https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/app/models/upload.py#L23 > * proposal - add to the plugin writers docs to not use settings in > the models but rather 'hardcode' those values > * Silent data corruption bug > * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7676#note-8 > * revert the commit > * cp to 3.7 and 3.8 > * open a new issue to repair the damage done > * 3.9.0 planned date? > * daviddavis to release (tentatively November 30) > * When pulpcore is released and master branch version is bumped, the > nightly job for plugins will start failing. > * Release pulp_file? > > ### Action items > * [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging > https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737 > * [david] schedule pulpcore FIPS meeting with bmbouter for later in > November > * [dkliban] file a task for running tests for multiple plugins in one fips > environment in the installer nightly > * [fao89] look at driving forward release automation > * [x9c4] to backport https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7737 and release 3.6.z > * [dkliban] cherry-pick 'request' commit to 3.8 branch > * [ipanova] open a doc bug re:don't use settings in the models fields > * [daniel] revert data corruption issue > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > -- CALVIN SPEALMAN SENIOR QUALITY ENGINEER cspea...@redhat.com M: +1.336.210.5107 [image: https://red.ht/sig] <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
