[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore team meeting notes
Calvin Spealman
cspealma at redhat.com
Tue Oct 27 15:17:14 UTC 2020
How does one get these meetings on their calendar and participate?
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:45 AM David Davis <daviddavis at 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 at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
--
CALVIN SPEALMAN
SENIOR QUALITY ENGINEER
cspealma at redhat.com M: +1.336.210.5107
[image: https://red.ht/sig] <https://red.ht/sig>
TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20201027/a238996d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list