17:02:10 #startmeeting tsc 17:02:10 Meeting started Thu Oct 15 17:02:10 2015 UTC. The chair is colindixon. Information about MeetBot at http://ci.openstack.org/meetbot.html. 17:02:10 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:02:10 The meeting name has been set to 'tsc' 17:02:17 #topic roll call and agenda bashing 17:02:27 TSC members please #info in 17:02:28 * tykeal notes he just sent out a tickler for GPG keysigning (wee!) 17:02:36 #info edwarnicke 17:02:36 #info mohnish anumala 17:02:49 #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/index.php?title=TSC:Main&oldid=37552#Agenda the agenda in it's usual place 17:03:04 #link https://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-meeting/2015/tsc/opendaylight-meeting-tsc.2015-10-08-17.00.html last week's meeting minutes 17:03:12 #action colindixon to try to find somebody to help with documenting the general procedure for the platform upgrade from Helium to Lithium (for SR3) https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3160 17:03:15 #info dlenrow 17:03:18 #info Daniel Farrell 17:03:38 #info colindixon is planning to present Advisory Group about Boron on next week on 10/22 17:04:07 #info colindixon 17:04:19 colindixon, I know I sent my email late but any time for the 2 items I'd like to bring up ? 17:05:05 colindixon, Could handle one of them under " Dealing upstream/downstream breakages (All, 10 minutes) " 17:05:07 #info jmedved 17:05:17 colindixon, And the other under " Boron Planning (Colin, remaining time) " 17:05:38 #info LuisGomez 17:06:42 #action ttcacik and zxiiro to work on getting feature-level code coverage numbers 17:06:43 We have quorum 17:07:04 #action colindixon to figure out where we lost action items, e.g., feature-level code coverage and make sure we didn't lose any others 17:08:00 #info abhijitkumbhare 17:08:11 #topic TSC at-large Elections 17:08:55 #action phrobb to send a mail trying to come up with a responsible way to extend the exemption for platinum designates, but not forever 17:09:03 #topic events 17:09:10 #link https://www.opendaylight.org/global-events 17:09:57 #info phrobb (and other folks) are at the dusseldorf ODL mini-summit, it seems like the different mini summits got much less attendance 17:10:07 #info dfarrell07 gave an ODL talk (the only one) at LinuxCon EU, full session, pretty user-focused and well-received 17:10:28 #info phrobb says it seems to be less about technical things this time, and more about sales people and customers 17:10:51 #link https://www.opendaylight.org/events/2015-11-09-000000-2015-11-10-000000/opendaylight-hackfest-opnfv-summit register for the 11/9 and 11/10 hackfest 17:11:13 #link https://www.opendaylight.org/events/2015-11-16-000000-2015-11-18-000000/mef-lso-hackathon MEF hackfest on 11/16 to 11/18 17:11:17 Was that meth event? 17:11:24 dlenrow: rof 17:11:30 rofl* 17:11:49 #info phrobb to get details about design summit sometime in the end of February and plan around that 17:11:55 * dfarrell07 heard meth too, not sure what the name was 17:12:03 MEF :) 17:12:21 #topic beryllium 17:12:29 #info M3 for offset 2 and M4 for offset 0 are due today. 17:12:34 anipbu: thanks 17:13:00 #link potential performance problem in OpenFlow plugin SR2 (Lithium design) 17:13:08 #undo 17:13:08 #undo 17:13:08 Removing item from minutes: 17:13:16 #chair anipbu phrobb 17:13:16 Current chairs: anipbu colindixon phrobb 17:13:26 #link https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/autorelease/job/autorelease-daily-beryllium/229/org.opendaylight.mdsal$mdsal-binding-generator-impl/ 17:13:53 #info anipbu is working with ttkacik and tykeal to resolve autorelease issues 17:17:30 #info colindixon asks if we should try to have two autorelease jobs one stable and one that's less stable so that we can try to maximize our visibility into what's going on 17:18:21 At a minimum breaking autorelease in the release candidate stage should have consequences 17:20:06 #info colindixon notes that if we run two autorelease streams (autorelease-stable, and autorelease-everything) if a project is not in "stable" it will not necessarilty be dropped from the release now, but it could be in the future. Projects need to actively work to stay properly executing in autorelease throughout the build cycle... Further discussion is needed here on the mailing list. 17:20:19 #action colindixon to start an e-mail offline around these issues, there's a broader question about minimum requirements and when projects to meet them to be in the SR 17:21:45 #topic branch cutting for Beryllium 17:22:25 #link https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2015-September/003879.html thread on branch cutting timing and strategy 17:23:37 #link https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2015-October/003984.html newer proposals 17:36:17 edwarnicke: we need to vote today, think fast ;) 17:36:49 Explain what happens to pre-boron/master next ... 17:40:34 #link https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1snubwW6M8q6jo4laLvZ0WEVtaM783Qc6Gf4qe7UQZtw/edit#slide=id.p <- attempt to sketch 17:41:31 edwarnikie: ^lithium^beryllium ? 17:42:56 ghall_: Thanks :) Dont' know why I have Li on the brain today :) 17:43:42 edwarnicke, Can you add some version numbers on here like A, A+1, A+2 ??? 17:44:09 #info rovarga asks if this happens, then how can you move in-flight patches on pre-boron to master in an automated way? 17:44:19 Cos my assumption is at M5 offset0, master goes from A to A+1, and preboron is A+2 ? 17:44:39 * dfarrell07 's understanding of this is the same as at the start, so that's a good sign 17:44:48 * dfarrell07 is ready to vote 17:45:19 Or master stays A and preboron is a+2 and m5 offset2 is stable/be goes to A and master then is a+1 and preboron is at a+2 ? 17:46:02 alagalah: on creating branches master is A until M5 offset 2 17:46:03 edwarnicke: can you replicate the branch lines to indicate 2 possible project types? one project type is actively developing on pre-boron and other project is developing on master only. 17:46:14 alagalah: then it's A + 0.1.0 17:46:28 alagalah: pre-boron is always A + 0.1.0 17:46:31 colindixon, ok thanks, so preboron ia a+0.2.0 ? 17:46:37 colindixon, anyway, I'll ask on list... got it 17:46:46 colindixon, Thanks 17:47:21 alagalah: stable/beryllium will be bumped by 0.0.01 after beryllium release 17:47:25 so A + 0.0.1 17:48:41 So we're talking about trading off pain upstream and pain downstream 17:50:02 ghall_, :) 17:52:21 It seems we want to delay the branching of offset 1 &2 until they are stable, while accelerate the branching of offset 0 which off course need to be stable first so downstream projects can finish. 17:52:36 * dfarrell07 is for a vote 17:54:51 Why is "simultaneous" release of all projects so important ... isn't that behind this issue? 17:55:44 what shall we do for cutting stable/beryllium branches (1) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 without a pre-boron, (2) all-at-once at offset 2 M5, (3) staged, (4) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 with pre-boron? 1, 2, 3, 4 17:55:50 ghall_: You sort of have to have lived through the carnage of the alternative to understand ;) 17:55:58 Ghali: we've discussed this . Making every project release as SR is flawed long term 17:57:18 dlenrow: +1 - across 52 projects it is hard 17:57:31 ttkacik1, dlenrow :) 17:57:54 Would like to point out the Eclipse does it for a much larger number of projects ;) 17:57:54 If we had core that would SR and offset 1 & 2 would release as they choose on stable core 17:58:17 dlenrow: agreed, but that is a wildly more complex conversation ;) 17:58:24 #startvote what shall we do for cutting stable/beryllium branches (1) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 without a pre-boron, (2) all-at-once at offset 2 M5, (3) staged, (4) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 with pre-boron, (5) abstain? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 17:58:24 Begin voting on: what shall we do for cutting stable/beryllium branches (1) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 without a pre-boron, (2) all-at-once at offset 2 M5, (3) staged, (4) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 with pre-boron, (5) abstain? Valid vote options are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 17:58:24 Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 17:58:41 #vote 4 17:58:42 #vote 4 17:58:45 #vote 4 17:58:47 #vote 4 17:58:48 #vote 4 17:58:52 #vite 4 17:59:02 #vote 4 17:59:04 aqua vite 17:59:06 :) 17:59:23 #endvote 17:59:23 Voted on "what shall we do for cutting stable/beryllium branches (1) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 without a pre-boron, (2) all-at-once at offset 2 M5, (3) staged, (4) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 with pre-boron, (5) abstain?" Results are 17:59:23 4 (6): dlenrow, LuisGomez, dfarrell07, colindixon, mohnish_, abhijitkumbhare 17:59:37 Alagalah::) 17:59:46 colindixon, I'll bring my stuff up to the TSC list 17:59:51 * dfarrell07 is so glad to have this vote done :) 18:00:40 #agreed the we will cut stable/beryllium branch at offset 2 M5, we will create pre-boron branches for everyone at offest 0 M5 if there is any interest, if there is literally zero interest, we don't have to 18:01:29 yes dfarrell07, i did not expect this level of agreement 18:02:20 #startvote what shall we do for cutting stable/beryllium branches (1) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 without a pre-boron, (2) all-at-once at offset 2 M5, (3) staged, (4) all-at-once at offset 2 M5 with pre-boron, (5) abstain? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 18:02:20 Begin voting on: what shall we do for cutting stable/beryllium branches (1) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 without a pre-boron, (2) all-at-once at offset 2 M5, (3) staged, (4) all-at-once at offset 2 M5 with pre-boron, (5) abstain? Valid vote options are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 18:02:20 Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 18:02:23 #vote 4 18:02:29 #vote 4 18:02:34 #vote 4 18:02:35 #vote 4 18:02:36 #vote 4 18:02:40 #vote 4 18:02:46 #endvote 18:02:46 Voted on "what shall we do for cutting stable/beryllium branches (1) all-at-once at offset 0 M5 without a pre-boron, (2) all-at-once at offset 2 M5, (3) staged, (4) all-at-once at offset 2 M5 with pre-boron, (5) abstain?" Results are 18:02:46 4 (6): dlenrow, LuisGomez, dfarrell07, colindixon, mohnish_, abhijitkumbhare 18:03:09 #info the second vote was to correct a mistake the phrasing of the first vote, and now agrees with #agree statement 18:03:33 thanks @ all :) 18:03:38 #action colindixon to send mail about possibly having two hour meetings to deal with our backlog 18:03:40 #topic cookies 18:03:43 #endmeeting