Public Core Meeting Meeting - March 2017

[gundalow]

Please leave a comment regarding any agenda item you wish to discuss. If you don't show up for the meeting, your item will be skipped.

If your IRC nick is different from your Github username, leave that as well.

See https://github.com/ansible/community/blob/master/meetings/README.md for the schedule

Once an item has been addressed it should get strike-though ~~strike-though~~

[gundalow]

Discuss extending the module "shipit" workflow to non-modules, such as:

• lib/ansible/plugins
• lib/ansible/module_utils
• contrib/inventory

Migrated from #150 (comment)

Update 12 Jan 2017 Meeting

• All approved. We'll start with contrib/inventory as most of those are community maintained as it is.
  • Will come up with a list of dynamic inventory proposed metadata for next week.
  • bcoca created spreadsheet; will update us on status.

Update 9th Feb 2017 Meeting
For contrib/inventory

• Spreadsheet exists
• bcoca to speak with @abadger to find out how we add python metadata to config files
• bcoca to organise meeting (internally?) to vote and get metadata agreed

Feb 21 Meeting

• For dyn inventory config files, abadger proposes that the config files use the asociated script's metadata.
  • Note: There are both yml and ini config files. Need to make sure both are handled by the metadata code.
  • ryansb will rename the one outlier, consul.ini to consul_io.ini to match with the script consul_io.py. (code will look for both file names for backwards compat) Completed

Mar 2 Meeting

• Nothing new to discuss while we wait on module metadata to be reworked.

Mar 14

• Metadata rework is done.

2017-03-23
jtanner to evaluate and write bot workflow for non-module shipits
tracked in ansible/ansibullbot#437
need more info on what 'rework is done' means

Rolled over to #159 (comment)

[gundalow]

From luto: ansible/ansible#19297 Fix for wildcards inside of a path for fileglob lookup (ie: with_fileglob: "/tmp/*/some.conf")

Migrated from #150 (comment)

• 24 Jan Meeting: bcoca had two observations which need to be considered as the code is reviewed:
  • (1) bcoca: dwim code always needs careful consideration because it can break a lot of things and isn't always obvious why it's doing things.
    • Submitter (rupran) says: "what it basically does is factor out a part of path_dwim_relative_stack (leaving the functionality untouched) to use it in with_fileglob"
  • (2) bcoca: lookups should use same function, once you start diverting them they become unpredictable but just on consistency with lookups, not happy to duplicate and modify functionality
• 9 Feb: @bcoca to review
• 21 Feb: Still on @bcoca's radar to review
• 2 Mar: Still on @bcoca's radar to review
• 7 Mar: Recently rebased. Still on bcoca's radar.

rolled over to #159 (comment)

[gundalow]

From bcoca: Decide which are valid directives on include (for execution or inheritance) and what to do when we decide they are not. This issue deals with one case, but i think we should deal with it in general https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/20440

Migrated from #150 (comment)
also document once decided so users KNOW what to expect

• 9 Feb Lots of discussion; https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-02-09/ansible_core_meeting.2017-02-09-15.00.log.html
  • Need to document, need to add tests to defend that order

• 2 Mar From bcoca: we can fix a few of those issues for 2.3.1. The rest has been added to the 2.4 roadmap draft.

[gundalow]

From rfleschenberg versioned docs

Migrated from #150 (comment)

Summarizing previous discussion

• Versioning approved. dharmabumstead and gundalow working on proposal here https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/ansible-versioned_docs

Mar 2: gundalow will update etherpad based on comments from meeting.
Mar 7: Posted link in meeting for people to comment on

proposal agreed, with Docs people to implement

[gundalow]

Define and document proposals process i.e ansible/proposals#50 was created and 'agreed' to immediately, w/o giving time for community feedback, which is happening now after implementation.

Migrated from #150 (comment)

We might need to review/update this:
https://github.com/ansible/proposals/blob/master/proposals_process_proposal.md

7 Feb Meeting

Discussed at the meeting. Many problems with the meta-proposal for creating proposals were discussed. Minimum timeframes were proposed but no agreement could be come to. Proposal documenting the new proposal process was asked for.

14 Feb Meeting

• ACTION: allanice001 has kindly offered to raise a PR to update proposals_process_proposal.md
• In the future we can look at moving this under docs.ansible.com/ansible/NEWDIR/process_proposal.html , Details about our release process, proposal process, etc will go there, rather than under dev_guide. Need to bikeshed a name. This is something for after Ansible 2.3 is released.

2 Mar Meeting

• No updates from allanice001. Still waiting on PR to update proposal.

2017-03-23
reviewed: ansible/proposals#59
no consensus, some feedback (see meeting notes) to be posted on ticket.

Rolled over to #159 (comment)

[gundalow]

ansible/proposals#14 Proposal: Module Rename Lifecycle
from ryansb
Migrated from #150 (comment)

Mar 2: No updates this meeting.

[gundalow]

I think a new discussion is in order on how to tackle the "modules are used for adding, changing, removing and giving information about an object". (Dag)

Discussion triggered by: ansible/ansible#20399 (review)

We have modules that allow state=list (or state=info), other (sets of) modules have _facts or _stat variants and here the contributor was requested to leave it out and assume that an undefined "state" means returning information, rather than making changes.

Migrated from: #150 (comment)

Mar 2: Current proposal is ansible/proposals#56. Additional comments can be made there, or a new proposal to supersede that one if necessary.

[gundalow]

Related to https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/21874 we disabled the standard expanduser/expandvars in a lot of internal module_utils functions. And it appeared that (at least) none of the integration tests rely on this specific expanding of user/vars of paths. Since we usually expand directly as part of processing parameters, it seems we don't actually need this on different levels (and in the case of unarchive in this specific case it was undesirable and potentially a security problem). (dag)

The question being: can we get rid of these expanduser/expandvars calls here ? And if so, what's the process to get it done.

Migrated from #150 (comment)

Mar 2: The addition of the expand argument in the PR provides backwards compatibility while allowing the issue to be fixed in modules. Once we split out basic.py into separate parts (probably in 2.5) the default behavior can be changed.

[gundalow]

Update to the metadata format: https://github.com/ansible/proposals/issues/54

Want to update the metadata format prior to 2.3 to get rid of some warts that have been identified post-implementation. (Toshio)

Migrated from #150 (comment)

Mar 2: Already decided in previous meeting.

[gundalow]

ansible/ansible#22330 moved README.md to README.rst

Should we also do this for CHANGELOG.md, having headings and TOC would make that a lot more readable

• 7 Mar: Three +1s (abadger, bcoca, sivel) if someone wants to take on the task. No objections. Light attendance at the meeting today.

[abadger]

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-03-07/core_team_meeting.2017-03-07-19.11.html
Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-03-07/core_team_meeting.2017-03-07-19.11.txt
Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-03-07/core_team_meeting.2017-03-07-19.11.log.html

[bcoca]

How should paths work?
ansible/ansible#22546

Rolled over #159 (comment)

[bcoca]

do we call them directives, attributes, keywords, etc?
ansible/ansible#22524

keywords won

[gundalow]

Ansible 2.3 RC1 has been released for testing
Please see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-devel/V2ESSQqLnS0 for details
We would appreciate your help testing.
Any issues, please raise at https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/new
Thanks!

[bcoca]

https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/22648 <= alternative module defaults

2017-03-16:

• agaffney reworking implementation to be keyword based vs var based.

2017-03-21:
+1 x2 some minor details , also waiting for jimi-c to weigh in jimi-c says its good, needs testing.~~

2017-03-21:
abadger1999 questions if default keyword behaviour should be merge vs replace, currently it behaves like 'tags' and merges particular to general vs something like become which always replaces.

[bcoca]

expand autodoc to plugins https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/22796

meeting notes 2017-03-21:
no opposition, waiting for code review
Done

[bcoca]

expand doc fields
ansible/proposals#58

2017-03-21:
types +1 as long as they are strict list
config: @bcoca to provide more examples as it seems to overlap with existing options

2017-03-23:
new proposal seems close to consensus, some details to discuss:

• priorities
• shared docs (fragments?)
• field naming (bikeshed away)

Ticket is open to updates/discussion and once those are done it will be brought back for final approval

Rolled over to #159 (comment)

[bcoca]

from open floor, by jtanner:
core/extras repo leftover open ticket handling
meeting notes 2017-03-21 + 2017-03-23:

• Proposals for issues:

  • Migrate Issues from the module repos to the ansible/ansible repo
    • +1: abadger1999 alikins
    • -1: nitzmahone ryansb sivel mattclay
    • 0: jctanner bcoca
  • keep them as they are, but no one is looking at them
    • -1 abadger1999 bcoca s-hertel
  • keep them as they are, schedule periodic review meeting to handle them
    • -1 abadger1999 bcoca
  • keep in place, but include them in 'backlog review' as we do in ansibile/ansible for core supported
  • close
    • -1 bcoca
  • close after new automated notice to migrate
    • +1 sivel jtanner mattclay nitzmahone abadger1999 s-hertel gregdek
    • -1 bcoca

• Proposal for PRs: automatically add comment to PRs "that an interested party needs to use the tool to migrate them to ansible/ansible" and then lock comments.

  • +1: bcoca abadger1999 nitzmahone ryansb mattclay alikins sivel gregdek

[allanice001]

For review: ansible/proposals#59 moved to entry above

[gregdek]

Issues: +1 to close after new automated notice to migrate.
PRs: +1 to the proposal.

[bcoca]

2017-03-23:

[12:55] Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-03-23/core-team-meeting.2017-03-23-15.01.html
[12:55] Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-03-23/core-team-meeting.2017-03-23-15.01.txt
[12:55] Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ansible-meeting/2017-03-23/core-team-meeting.2017-03-23-15.01.log.html

[gundalow]

Ansible 2.3 RC2 has been releases, Please test and report issues via https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/new
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-devel/cmYsumCc4kA

[sivel]

As a comment to the markdown to reStructuredText, it was mentioned in the meeting that all files should be converted. This should not apply to the ticket_stubs, as they are meant for copy/paste into comment fields, and GitHub doesn't support rst comments, only markdown. The same likely goes for the ticket templates.

[jctanner]

ansible/ansible#16832 might help us get more testers on RCs

[bcoca]

Now that we support docs for many more plugin types, should we require all new plugins of those types to have docs included?

Rolled over #159 (comment)

[gundalow]

Ansible 2.3 RC3 has been released https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-devel/X8sYLl-ZuTY

We welcome your feedback, after all, we can only fix what we know is broken. If you spot any issues please raise via https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/new

Thanks again for your help

[mattclay]

ansible/ansible#9563 (Adding nested dictionary lookups) - Do we want to accept this PR?

NOTE: Tests were passing until more strict checks were added recently. Docs will need to be updated to reference the 2.4 release instead of 2.2.

Rolled over to #159 (comment)

[bmildren]

Hi all, I'm trying to find how to progress this PR past community review, and it was suggested I add it here as an item to discuss.. ansible/ansible#19872

(my irc handle is productiondba)

Rolled over to #159 (comment)

[gundalow]

As we are in April we've rolled over to a new agenda.

Any open items have been carried over

#159