- Friday, September 14, 2018

release-team@conference.openafs.org

Friday, September 14, 2018< ^ >

Room Configuration

Room Occupants

GMT+0
[01:06:22] mvita leaves the room
[02:47:25] mvita joins the room
[02:59:05] mvita leaves the room
[03:26:57] mvita joins the room
[04:09:44] mvita leaves the room
[12:06:55] Marcio Barbosa joins the room
[12:50:32] meffie joins the room
[13:01:21] wiesand joins the room
[13:01:41] <wiesand> hello
[13:02:15] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> greeetings
[13:02:15] <meffie> good afternoon
[13:02:32] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Sorry to have given you such a scare with the branch/tag status
[13:02:43] <wiesand> my bad
[13:03:09] <wiesand> git fetch -t indeed saved my world ;-)
[13:03:19] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Oh, I will take some blame for pushing a tag with no branch; it is a
confusing thing to do
[13:03:44] <meffie> ah, yes, i dont know why fetch --tags is not the default.
[13:04:49] <wiesand> i'm wondering how to proceed with 1.6.24pre1
[13:05:18] <wiesand> how to handle NEWS?
[13:05:23] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Anyway, my current  thoughts are that there's no need for the 1.6.23
tag to be visible on 1.6.22-branch, but I should make the merge commit
into 1.6.x
[13:05:45] <wiesand> ok, that would solve my "problem"
[13:05:57] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> So that would get you a complete NEWS on 1.6.x for 1.6.24pre1, and
1.6.22-branch would only point to things named 1.6.22.x
[13:06:04] <meffie> seems like a good idea (merge commit)
[13:06:25] <meffie> someone should warn mark v :)
[13:06:36] <wiesand> hopefully we can retire 1_6_22-branch
[13:07:25] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I hope we can retire it, yes :)
[13:07:46] <wiesand> since it looks like we're still good with linux-next
[13:08:56] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> merge conflicts, how novel.
[13:09:22] mvita joins the room
[13:09:39] <wiesand> ok, after we have the merge commit, i'll replace 13279 and 12895 and we can release 1.6.24pre1
[13:09:45] <mvita> please excuse my tardiness
[13:10:57] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Ah, just in time for the merge commit!
[13:11:02] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> (please don't run away)
[13:11:08] <mvita> YAHHHHHHHH
[13:11:24] <wiesand> you are not alone
[13:11:41] <meffie> merge commits are a good thing when used correctly :)
[13:12:49] <meffie> we kind of already do it by cherry picking whole branches...
[13:13:14] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> This sort of merge commit actually has a lot of historical precedent
for previous security releases.
[13:13:29] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> To ssh://gerrit.openafs.org/openafs.git
   0cdb370f18..e654f63787  HEAD -> openafs-stable-1_6_x
[13:13:31] <meffie> good point. yes.
[13:15:56] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Okay, so now we're basically set to adjust those two commits and do a
1.6.24pre1?
[13:16:13] <wiesand> hopefully, yes
[13:20:48] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Any other stable release topics?
Complaints about the security release?
[13:21:31] <wiesand> thanks a lot again for that sprint
[13:21:39] <mvita> yes, thank you Ben
[13:22:22] <wiesand> i don't think i have other stable release topics today
[13:22:29] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I probably should have started writing the code earlier, but times
they are a-busy
[13:22:30] <mvita> 13311 should be pulled to 1.6.x and 1.6.x
[13:22:51] <mvita> um
[13:22:54] <mvita> 1.8.x
[13:23:00] <mvita> no coffee yet
[13:24:05] <mvita> I will submit backport for 1.8.x
[13:24:09] <wiesand> i think that build error was not in the releases, was it?
[13:24:20] <mvita> yes it was
[13:24:29] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> It probably depends on your compiler and whether you use
--strict-warnings, whether you see it.
[13:24:33] <mvita> yes
[13:24:38] <mvita> e.g http://buildbot.openafs.org:8010/builders/opensuse13-arm-builder/builds/3097/steps/compile/logs/stdio
[13:24:42] <mvita> fails
[13:25:10] <mvita> but http://buildbot.openafs.org:8010/builders/debian9-amd64-builder/builds/1542 is ok
[13:27:41] <wiesand> hmm, 78b5be7ddd9f8b9b416c7405074253770e8354d8 (the 1.6.23 pullup of c43169fd36348783b1a5a55c5bb05317e86eef82) seems not to introduce that TLog call at all
[13:27:45] <meffie> i've had to make some of the builders do less checking, otherwise nothing builds...
[13:27:52] <wiesand> guess I'm still confused
[13:28:02] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Oh, yeah, that audit infra doesn't exist on 1.6.x
[13:28:06] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> So it only needs a 1.8 pullup
[13:28:08] <mvita> OH.
[13:28:11] <mvita> ok
[13:28:48] <mvita> I assumed too much!
[13:28:49] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I believe that this means that the 1.6 audit logs will always include
user[.instance]@realm -- the newer releases are supposed to strip
@realm when it's the local realm
[13:30:59] <wiesand> ok, 13311 pullup earmarked for 1.8.3
[13:31:52] <wiesand> 13177 too, obviously
[13:33:09] <wiesand> and probably a few more - I'll got through changes recently merged master and try to pull up what makes sense to me
[13:33:19] <wiesand> on to master?
[13:33:49] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I merged a few things last night/this morning and left comments on
others.  Still lots to look at later today/this weekend, though!
[13:36:07] meffie leaves the room
[13:36:16] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Also the stack of followups I promised in mail starts at 13313 (I
failed to set a gerrit topic, alas)
[13:36:42] meffie joins the room
[13:37:07] <mvita> oh, how do I push for 1.8.x?   Is this correct:  git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/openafs-stable-1_8_x
[13:37:29] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> yes
[13:37:32] <mvita> tx
[13:38:00] <mvita> remote: New Changes:
remote:   https://gerrit.openafs.org/13328 butc: repair build error
remote:   https://gerrit.openafs.org/13329 budb: SBUDB_FindLatestDump should check result of FillDumpEntry
[13:38:22] <wiesand> ok, thanks
[13:38:37] <wiesand> ben: you can set/change topics in the gui
[13:39:41] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Right, but what topic value would I use?
[13:41:40] <wiesand> security-followups?
[13:42:13] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I guess that could work, though these commits don't affect security
themselves.
[13:43:26] <mvita> topic: "pain-in-the-butc"
[13:43:35] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> hahaha
[13:43:41] <wiesand> hihi
[13:43:56] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> That code is pretty bad, 'tis true.
[13:44:06] <wiesand> would violate our code of conduct though ;-)
[13:44:26] <mvita> oops - withdrawn
[13:45:42] <wiesand> is there more to discuss today?
[13:46:15] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> I don't think I have anything
[13:46:20] <mvita> nothing from me
[13:46:49] <meffie> thanks
[13:47:03] <wiesand> fine, let's adjourn then - thanks a lot everybody
[13:47:11] <kaduk@jabber.openafs.org/barnowl> Okay.  Thanks everyone!
[13:47:38] wiesand leaves the room
[13:58:20] meffie leaves the room
[17:46:28] mvita leaves the room
[18:24:33] mvita joins the room
[20:19:20] mvita leaves the room
[21:53:45] Marcio Barbosa leaves the room
[22:45:06] mvita joins the room