Release meeting notes 2021-05-03

Development Releases
1

Foreman 2.5:

  • All installer modules released.
  • The nightly are green!
  • The manuals have been branched and strings have been extracted one more time as we had few prs with string changes.
  • We are ready to branch on time!

Katello
4.1:

  • Waiting on packaging stuff @Zhunting should take care of it.

3.18:

@quba42:

  • Requested a way to notify on branching the pulp_core repos so he can take care of bumping the pulp Debian plugin to avoid mismatch in bindings.
  • A step in the the pulpcore checklist can be used to add a step to notify respective pulp plugin maintainers?
  • The @evgeni handles the branching so maybe he can help for heads up? or watch the pulpcore repo for branching pr which may not work if branches are pushed without pr.
  • Can pulp node be on another system than Katello? @ekohl This is much desired feature however we are not yet there.
2

Just wanted to add a reference to the pulp_deb version bump PRs I talked about (the descriptions reference the related foreman and pulpcore packaging PRs):

1 Like
3

Thanks again for all the help and effort with including pulp_deb in this release process!

2 Likes
4

When we branch pulpcore packaging, we usually update all plugins to latest compatible releases.

I think it’s only a problem when the plugin releases after we branched.

5

Nevertheless, if you could just ping me the next time you create a new pulpcore-packaging rpm/<pulpcore_version> branch, that would be great. A chance to look at this process as it happens will allow me to evaluate if there is anything I can do to make the process more fluid for everyone involved (at least with respect to pulp_deb). Perhaps it’s just be a matter of paying more attention to when I perform pulp_deb releases. It’s hard for me to judge why a particular version might not have been included weeks later.

6

Would it help if we posted the procedure here on Discourse just like we do with Foreman and Katello? That way if you follow the releases Discourse, you should see it without having to rely on pinging individuals.

7

We held a meeting yesterday where we decided the procedure for requesting a new pulpcore version branch for pulpcore-packaging is extended by a notification to the pulp-dev mailing list. Notification on discourse would be a different channel for the same communication. I don’t have any strong opinions which channel is best. @Justin_Sherrill Do you have a preference?

8

Notification to pulp-dev makes sense to me and it’s essentially the same as I proposed: broadcast it somewhere so all interested parties can follow that medium.

Also note that those 2 are not mutually exclusive. You can still post the procedure here and mail to pulp-dev that it started and link to the discourse post for all details. Also the other way around works (post to pulp-dev and link here).