13:02:47 <jki> #startmeeting CIP IRC weekly meeting
13:02:47 <collab-meetbot`> Meeting started Thu Feb  9 13:02:47 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jki. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:02:47 <collab-meetbot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:02:47 <collab-meetbot`> The meeting name has been set to 'cip_irc_weekly_meeting'
13:02:54 <jki> #topic AI review
13:03:01 <jki> 1. enable more stable trees for testing (patersonc)
13:05:17 <jki> patersonc: any comment on the AT?
13:05:40 <patersonc> Sorry, Matrix doesn't seem to be working with this channel, I've just switched to a different client
13:05:53 <pave1> (it was 1. enable more stable trees for testing (patersonc))
13:06:00 <patersonc> Thanks Pavel
13:06:08 <patersonc> No, I haven't done it yet, sorry
13:06:30 <jki> 2. report 6.1 test plan to LKML (?)
13:06:51 <jki> despite the 6.1 LTS announcement, this is not fully obsolete, I think
13:07:21 <jki> didn't recall if someone took that AI already
13:07:26 <pave1> Do you have link to the announcement?
13:07:43 <jki> https://kernel.org/category/releases.html
13:07:51 <pave1> Thanks!
13:07:57 <jki> not sure if there was an email as well
13:09:00 <patersonc> I missed that. Thanks jki
13:09:28 <iwamatsu`> it is a good news.
13:10:01 <pave1> Interesting note is that projected EOL is same for 5.10 and 6.1.
13:10:07 <pave1> That will be rather busy December for us.
13:10:12 <jki> yes
13:10:28 <jki> OTOH, the value of the CIP kernel increases again
13:11:56 <pave1> I guess the testing team should do the emailing? Alternatively I can do it if I know what to write there.
13:12:17 <pave1> "We'll likely maintain 6.1 in future, so we'll start testing it in near future?" :-)
13:12:43 <jki> even better would be if we started already
13:13:38 <jki> "we will likely select 6.1 as the next CIP kernel"
13:14:27 <jki> so, does this AI effective depend on the first AI?
13:14:46 <patersonc> We'll get the testing in place, then start reporting back on the stable-rc reviews
13:15:02 <patersonc> The project can announce support for 6.1-cip when it's ready to officially decide
13:15:42 <jki> once we do the reporting, it is still valuable to highlight this
13:15:48 <jki> ok
13:16:01 <jki> anything else?
13:16:37 <jki> 3
13:16:39 <jki> 2
13:16:41 <jki> 1
13:16:43 <jki> #topic Kernel maintenance updates
13:17:02 <uli> now reviewing 5.10.168
13:17:05 <pave1> I did reviews on 5.10.166, 167, 168.
13:17:08 <masami> This week reported 4 new CVEs and 2 updated CVEs.
13:17:36 <pave1> I'll be travelling next week, so may not make it to the meetings.
13:17:43 <iwamatsu`> I reviewed 5.10.166 and 167.
13:19:59 <jki> anything else?
13:20:24 <jki> 3
13:20:26 <jki> 2
13:20:28 <jki> 1
13:20:31 <jki> #topic Kernel release status
13:20:35 <jki> - 4.4
13:21:13 <uli> pave1 released 4.4.302-cip72-rt42
13:22:45 <jki> ok
13:22:49 <jki> - 4.19
13:23:46 <iwamatsu`> About RT, RT team had been released v4.19.271-rt120. We can sync this version
13:24:09 <pave1> I believe RT is due to next month, so no need to do anything now?
13:25:12 <jki> formally correct
13:25:37 <iwamatsu`> Yes, I think so.
13:26:13 <jki> then we are on schedule
13:26:15 <jki> - 5.10
13:26:44 <iwamatsu`> And LTS is 272. I will release cip version with this.
13:27:29 <iwamatsu`> about 5.10, on schedule.
13:28:06 <pave1> Last -rt was on Jan 19, so we have few more days.
13:28:19 <iwamatsu`> I will release cip version with 5.10.167 in this week.
13:28:24 <jki> ok
13:28:29 <jki> good
13:28:33 <jki> #topic Kernel testing
13:29:32 <patersonc[m]> I've spent some more time this week on sorting out our LAVA version upgrade
13:30:06 <alicef> update the PR on kernelci for using cip-kernel-config both with 5.10.y-cip and 4.4.y-cip
13:30:07 <patersonc[m]> I've seen a few instances where it doesn't load properly though with some of the database migrations. I'm still investigating this.
13:30:10 <alicef> https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/pull/1705
13:30:47 <patersonc[m]> Here's a question for you all - how long do we want to keep test job logs for on LAVA?
13:32:04 <uli> how long are they kept now?
13:32:26 <patersonc[m]> Currently forever
13:32:44 <patersonc[m]> And the database/logs are over 6GB, which is a bit big
13:33:19 <patersonc[m]> I'd like to cut it all down, but it depends on what our requirements are
13:33:37 <pave1> Forever is good :-). Could we move them to some kind of archive after a year, for example?
13:34:18 <patersonc[m]> We can keep a backup of the database/logs, but it wouldn't be browsable from within LAVA
13:34:37 <patersonc[m]> We'd have to either manually untar the logs and search, or load it back up in another LAVA instance
13:34:41 <iwamatsu`> Perhaps it is not the period, but the question of which log to record.
13:35:07 <pave1> I'd say that browsable for year is enough, but I would keep the tars...
13:35:25 <uli> +1
13:35:38 <patersonc[m]> The database/logs get backed up to AWS every night, so we have that
13:35:59 <patersonc[m]> I'll set up a cron to cull jobs older than a year from the "production" database
13:36:05 <iwamatsu`> I see.
13:36:16 <patersonc[m]> That should speed things up a lot when taking/restoring backups
13:36:50 <patersonc[m]> We can adjust the time period in future if we change our mind
13:36:52 <patersonc[m]> Thanks all
13:37:27 <iwamatsu`> OK. one year is enough, I think.
13:39:16 <patersonc[m]> Okie Dokie
13:39:40 <jki> anything else on testing?
13:39:59 <patersonc[m]> Not from me
13:42:00 <jki> 3
13:42:01 <jki> 2
13:42:03 <jki> 1
13:42:06 <jki> #topic AOB
13:45:17 <jki> anyone any topic?
13:46:24 <jki> 3
13:46:26 <jki> 2
13:46:28 <jki> 1
13:46:30 <jki> #endmeeting