Re: [OpenStack-Infra] JJB V2.0 planning

[Thanh Ha]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Wayne Warren  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Thanh Ha 
> wrote:
>
>> There's 2 patches that need one more core-review to get merged so
>> hopefully someone can take a look at them soon:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/336091 Improve logger output for expanding
>> templates
>> https://review.openstack.org/206178 Add view management functionality
>>
>
> Merged, looking forward trying these out in the 2.0.0 release!
>
>
>> And these patches need some reviews:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/395716 Add support for view-template
>>
>
> This is a feature addition that seems to me like it could just as easily
> have landed in 1.x as in 2.0.0 or for that matter 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. Are
> we blocking a 2.0.0 release on this and if so is there a technical reason
> for doing that rather than focusing on merging the changes necessary for
> 2.0.0--the goal of which remember was to refactor the API for improved
> programmatic access to JJB internals, which benefits all of us even if the
> view-template feature is not included in the first 2.x release.
>

You're right this one can be added at anytime. It would be very helpful to
us if we can get it in sooner rather than later though as we rely on views
quite a bit. At least the view patch above was merged so that will get us
by if we don't have time for this one.



>
>
>> We also have 4 patches that still need work:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/333076 Move macro expansion into YamlParser
>>
>
> I will find time to update this per the review comments by Friday.
>
>
>> https://review.openstack.org/309735 Output additional info when
>> exceptions occur
>> https://review.openstack.org/357960 Add convenience function for plugin
>> namespace
>>
>
I'll try to take another crack at the plugin namespace one today.



> https://review.openstack.org/358019 Support explicit API and simple
>> config creation
>>
>> There's also some TODO actions in the etherpad that we need to decide if
>> we want to continue pushing for in the JJB 2.0 push.
>>
>
> I think the best forum for making a decision on these items would be here
> on the mailing list. If everyone else agrees let's start that in this
> thread.
>

+1 that makes sense to me.


Thanh
___
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] Tri-Weekly IRC meetings?

[Thierry Carrez]

Blair Bethwaite wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2016 8:56 PM, "Thierry Carrez"  > wrote:
>>
>> The issue with this solution is that any "monthly" slot ends up being
>> exactly the same as a "weekly" slot: you can't schedule any
>> weekly/biweekly meetings at the same time and location. Monthly meetings
>> are therefore paradoxically more wasteful than biweekly meetings, and
>> there is therefore little point in adding them to the software since you
>> can emulate them with "weekly" bookings and just skip most meetings.
> 
> That seems to be based on the assumption that other groups wouldn't want
> monthly scheduling?
> 
> Also, I'd suggest we avoid "monthly" altogether and instead use
> "4weekly", that would seem to allow biweekly meetings to use the same
> day on the alternate (odd/even) week.

4weekly sounds like a good idea! Less conflicts ftw.

If we really really want monthly stuff, we could create a channel
dedicated to monthly meetings, to avoid creating conflicts on every
channels.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

___
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra

Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [OpenStack-docs] Training guides meeting @Barcelona Summit

[Ildiko Vancsa]

Hi Ian,

I agree, let’s have a meeting next Tuesday and we can agree on the logistics 
there.

Thanks,
Ildikó


> On 2016. Nov 10., at 19:10, Ian Y. Choi  wrote:
> 
> Ildiko Vancsa wrote on 11/10/2016 4:57 AM:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I like the ISO week numbers better. I think it’s more consistent, gives a 
>> regular cadence and does not cause confusions with having a meeting on the 
>> 5th week or not for instance.
>> 
>> My 2 cents.
> Make sense. Then IMO changing [1] with biweekly-odd or documenting this as 
> description would be good.
> For monthly meeting occurrence idea, I would like to follow another mail 
> thread [2].
> 
> Although the next week is even according to ISO week numbers, let's have 
> training-guides meeting
> on next Tuesday 13:00 UTC and make accordance for that, since there were no 
> training-guides team meeting for latest 3 weeks.
> 
> Is this okay for all training-guides meeting attendees?
> 
> 
> [1] 
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/irc-meetings/tree/meetings/training-guides-team-meeting.yaml
>  
> 
> [2] 
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-infra/2016-November/004835.html
>  
> 
> 
> 
> With many thanks,
> 
> /Ian
>> 
>> Thanks and Best Regards,
>> Ildikó
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2016. Nov 9., at 20:21, Ian Y. Choi >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> IMO if there is an IRC meeting on every week with alternating times for odd 
>>> and even weeks,
>>> having two bi-weekly schedules with alternating times would be 
>>> self-explanatory.
>>> However, if the meeting frequency would be just one or two in a month,
>>> then referring such as n-th week in every month would be more intuitive I 
>>> think.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately current yaml2ical does not support such logistics,
>>> but my WIP patch ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/395762/ 
>>>  ) will make a clue
>>> to support such logistics in the near future I think :)
>>> 
>>> Note that I suggest not to consider 5th weeks because some months do not 
>>> have 5th weeks.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With many thanks,
>>> 
>>> /Ian
>>> 
>>> Jeremy Stanley wrote on 11/9/2016 10:45 PM:
 On 2016-11-09 13:34:34 +0900 (+0900), Ian Y. Choi wrote:
> My understanding of *odd* weeks is the 1st and 3rd weeks in every month,
> since we actually had training-guides meetings with such logistics a few
> months ago.
 [...]
 
 So you skip 5th weeks when those happen? Or you have back-to-back
 meeting weeks in those cases?
 
 The way alternating weeks are usually interpreted (and handled in
 the IRC meeting scheduling automation we have) is based on even or
 odd ISO week numbers:
 
 http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/yaml2ical/tree/README.rst?id=c29e042#n163
  
 
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date 
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-Infra mailing list
>>> OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org 
>>> 
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra 
>>> 
> 

___
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra

[OpenStack-Infra] Subject: Re: [openstack-manuals] Create a stable/newton branch for openstack-manuals

[Olena Logvinova]

Thanks Clark!

The HEAD git ref is fine.

-- 
Best regards,
Olena Logvinova,
Technical Writer | Mirantis | 38, Nauki av., Kharkiv, Ukraine
ologvin...@mirantis.com | +380950903196


Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:18:28 -0800
From: Clark Boylan 
To: openstack-infra@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-Infra] [openstack-manuals] Create a
stable/newton branch for openstack-manuals
Message-ID:
<1478798308.441710.783761241.19b9e...@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, Nov 10, 2016, at 08:46 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 11:31 AM, Clark Boylan wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016, at 04:17 AM, Olena Logvinova wrote:
> >> Hi Infra team!
> >>
> >> We need a stable/newton branch to be created for the openstack-manuals
> >> repo, please. The date announced in the mailing list is November, 11
> >> (tomorrow).
> >>
> >>
> >> Who would be able to do that?
> >
> > The release team has been handling release related branch management for
> > projects. If they are unable to do this for you the infra team as Gerrit
> > admins can sort it out as well.
>
> openstack-manuals has no tags and is not handled by release team - and I
> asked the release team in one session in Barcelona about it.
>
> So, it needs an infra-root to do it again, please

In that case just let us know what git ref we need to base stable/newton
on and we can create it when you are ready.

Clark
___
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra