14:58:53 <dmcbride> #startmeeting OPNFV Colorado 2.0 release daily
14:58:53 <collabot> Meeting started Fri Oct 21 14:58:53 2016 UTC.  The chair is dmcbride. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:58:53 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:58:53 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'opnfv_colorado_2_0_release_daily'
14:59:13 <dmcbride> #topic roll call
14:59:18 <dmcbride> #info David McBride
14:59:38 <dmcbride> hello team!
15:00:39 <fzhadaev> #info Fedor Zhadaev
15:00:43 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: any progress?
15:00:48 <fzhadaev> Hello David
15:01:04 <fzhadaev> yes, we merged fix for issue with keystone
15:01:14 <fzhadaev> waiting for the results
15:01:54 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: remind me - are you releasing all scenarios for which you are owner?
15:02:10 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: or just certain scenarios?
15:03:08 <fzhadaev> we'll make the final decision in the beginning of the next week. according to the test results
15:03:48 <fzhadaev> but ideally we want to re-release all scenarios.
15:04:31 <fzhadaev> I hope I'll give you the final answer on monday's meeting
15:05:14 <fzhadaev> Is it ok?
15:05:39 <dmcbride> fine with me
15:05:51 <fzhadaev> good, thanks
15:06:17 * dmcbride sending mail to Wei Su about functest results for os-onos-sfc-ha
15:08:10 <fzhadaev> just to clarify - if we decided to release the number of scenarios in 2.0 what certain steps we should do for it? 1) update the release notes; 2) create new git tag; 3) ???
15:08:28 <jose_lausuch> I think git tag is for everyone
15:08:49 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: update documentation and test results
15:09:27 <fzhadaev> about test results - where I should update them?
15:10:32 <dmcbride> jose_lausuch: does the test team manage documentation of test results for all scenarios?
15:10:40 <jose_lausuch> no
15:10:47 <jose_lausuch> we just provide the dashboard
15:10:57 <fzhadaev> excuse me for asking. previously it was done by other people. and I want to ensure that I don't miss something.
15:11:06 <jose_lausuch> but the limitations of the scenarios should be in the release notes of thescenario owner
15:11:16 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: what did you do with the test results for Col 1.0?
15:11:24 <jose_lausuch> we also have a table in our release notes to list the limitations
15:11:26 <jose_lausuch> but
15:11:44 <jose_lausuch> the explaination about why something fails has to be in each project
15:12:05 <jose_lausuch> http://artifacts.opnfv.org/functest/colorado/docs/release-notes/index.html
15:12:27 <jose_lausuch> look at 2.8. Colorado known restrictions/issues
15:12:41 <fzhadaev> so, by 'test results' you mean 'known issues' in release notes?
15:13:11 <jose_lausuch> the test results are the tables above
15:13:17 <jose_lausuch> I can take care of that
15:13:33 <jose_lausuch> but that is just a snapshot of what the functest dashboard shows
15:15:42 <fzhadaev> ok, so from Fuel side I need to update release notes and insure that it contains valid information. right?
15:15:52 <jose_lausuch> yes
15:16:00 <jose_lausuch> and one thing
15:16:22 <jose_lausuch> some scenarios are failing since the Boron uplift
15:16:35 <jose_lausuch> I'm taking to Michal about that
15:16:56 <jose_lausuch> that should be in the release notes, right dmcbride?
15:17:51 <dmcbride> jose_lausuch: correct - scenario owners should document and explain exceptions, such as test failures
15:18:28 <fzhadaev> got it
15:18:39 <jose_lausuch> we can mention 1-2 statements in our release notes, but they should be well explained in the project's release notes
15:18:39 <dmcbride> jose_lausuch: Morgan said on Tuesday that I was missing one scenario from the list of scenarios for 2.0
15:18:53 <jose_lausuch> yes
15:18:57 <dmcbride> jose_lausuch: os-onos-sfc-ha on Apex
15:19:25 <dmcbride> jose_lausuch: however, when I look at the scenario status page, Wei Su says "No" in the Col 2.0 column
15:19:26 <jose_lausuch> yep
15:19:40 <jose_lausuch> but it is executed in CI
15:19:42 <dmcbride> jose_lausuch: why did Morgan think that this scenario would be released?
15:20:06 <jose_lausuch> https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-apex-apex-daily-colorado-daily-colorado/
15:20:12 <jose_lausuch> because it is executed in CI
15:20:39 <dmcbride> there are many scenarios executed in CI that are not being released for 2.0
15:20:45 <jose_lausuch> otherwise what is the point of executing something in Colorado branch in CI if its not te be released?
15:20:58 <jose_lausuch> then I think its a waste of resources :)
15:21:06 <dmcbride> because bug fixes will be included in source
15:21:19 <jose_lausuch> ok
15:21:44 <jose_lausuch> but then its a "bug-fixed" released scenario
15:21:45 <dmcbride> except in the case of owners like fzhadaev, who is willing to do the work to re-release the scenario
15:21:49 <jose_lausuch> then it makes sense
15:24:52 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: so, I count 5 scenarios that you plan to re-release
15:25:03 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: the only one that you won't release is os-nosdn-vlan-ha
15:25:09 <dmcbride> fzhadaev: does that sound right?
15:26:12 <fzhadaev> right. os-nosdn-vlan-ha doesn't exists
15:29:23 <fzhadaev> when I put 'yes' for re-release I thought about 2.0 as about maintenance release. but as far as we're already spent some resources for work on our already released scenarios on colorado branch we want to try release this changes.
15:31:04 <fzhadaev> however, as I said, we had critical issue, which was fixed just today. so we need to look on test results on monday and make a decision - release or not our changes in 2.0
15:31:24 <jose_lausuch> what critical issue?
15:32:03 <fzhadaev> with counting number of workers.
15:32:40 <fzhadaev> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/23497/
15:34:18 <fzhadaev> keystone had much less number of workers than other services. in the result many of our jobs failed with 'keystone API unavailable' error.
15:34:50 <fzhadaev> and we couldn't see the clear picture of test results.
15:36:31 <dmcbride> ok guys, we'll see where we are on Monday
15:36:46 <dmcbride> #endmeeting