ESC meeting notes for the 1st of June

97 views
Skip to first unread message

lucamilanesio

unread,
Jun 7, 2021, 7:33:23 PM (8 days ago) Jun 7
to Repo and Gerrit Discussion
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

Luca.

David Ostrovsky

unread,
Jun 8, 2021, 1:17:16 AM (7 days ago) Jun 8
to Repo and Gerrit Discussion
lucamilanesio schrieb am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021 um 01:33:23 UTC+2:
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

> The ESC consensus is that the community support for Gerrit v2.16 will end when v3.5 is released.

What does this mean for request to update Google Chrome version
for PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI, done in this CL: [1]?

Given that Gerrit 3.5 will be released in October 2021, that would mean the delay
for months. For the record, we cannot verify 2.16 PolyGerrit changes on recent
Google Chrome release because it depends on outdated web component tester
WCT: [2].

I see a couple of options:

1. Remove PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI stable-2.16 ASAP. (Also note, that
    PolyGerrit UI is experimental in 2.16.x release and discouraged for
    production use. The PolyGerrit code base wasn't touched for years on this branch.)
2. Consider to release Gerrit 3.5 earlier and have 3 major releases this year
3. Split CI docker images for outdated and current Google Chrome versions. That
     would mean even more work on the CI pipeline side, obviously.
4. Wait for half an year for current Google Chrome version support on Gerrit CI
 

Thoughts?



Luca.

Luca Milanesio

unread,
Jun 8, 2021, 8:20:52 AM (7 days ago) Jun 8
to Repo and Gerrit Discussion, Luca Milanesio, David Ostrovsky

On 8 Jun 2021, at 06:17, David Ostrovsky <david.o...@gmail.com> wrote:



lucamilanesio schrieb am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021 um 01:33:23 UTC+2:
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

> The ESC consensus is that the community support for Gerrit v2.16 will end when v3.5 is released.

What does this mean for request to update Google Chrome version
for PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI, done in this CL: [1]?

We should support both until v3.5 is released. After that, we can do a *huge* cleanup :-)

Given that Gerrit 3.5 will be released in October 2021, that would mean the delay
for months. For the record, we cannot verify 2.16 PolyGerrit changes on recent
Google Chrome release because it depends on outdated web component tester
WCT: [2].

Sure, that’s yet another reason for dropping v2.16: if we cannot guarantee that works, it is way better to be honest with the community and say that isn’t supported.
However, we cannot drop support overnight and leave time for people to get on a *safer* release, such as v3.2 or later.

I see a couple of options:

1. Remove PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI stable-2.16 ASAP. (Also note, that
    PolyGerrit UI is experimental in 2.16.x release and discouraged for
    production use. The PolyGerrit code base wasn't touched for years on this branch.)

Verification works at the moment, but I see your point that it may break at any time and we are helpless on that.

2. Consider to release Gerrit 3.5 earlier and have 3 major releases this year

I believe we need to leave more time for v3.4 to settle before going into yet another release cycle.

3. Split CI docker images for outdated and current Google Chrome versions. That
     would mean even more work on the CI pipeline side, obviously.

That is the best option for me.

4. Wait for half an year for current Google Chrome version support on Gerrit CI

-1 to this.

Luca.

--
--
To unsubscribe, email repo-discuss...@googlegroups.com
More info at http://groups.google.com/group/repo-discuss?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Repo and Gerrit Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to repo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/repo-discuss/a3178b5e-5a9a-402e-a8b9-4bea4fe2da34n%40googlegroups.com.

Han-Wen Nienhuys

unread,
Jun 9, 2021, 4:43:38 AM (6 days ago) Jun 9
to Luca Milanesio, Repo and Gerrit Discussion, David Ostrovsky
If we are strict about only doing bugfixes on stable releases, it should be possible to cut a CI image for each stable release, and leave the CI image alone.

(not sure how much overhead that is for the CI scripts, of course.)

--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich
I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays.
--

Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich

Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg

Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado

Luca Milanesio

unread,
Jun 9, 2021, 8:43:20 AM (6 days ago) Jun 9
to Repo and Gerrit Discussion, Luca Milanesio
I actually proposed to move to “tagged” images with [1] but it was rejected during the review.
Should we reconsider?

Luca.

Nasser Grainawi

unread,
Jun 9, 2021, 12:36:11 PM (6 days ago) Jun 9
to Luca Milanesio, Repo and Gerrit Discussion

On Jun 9, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 09:43, Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@google.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:20 PM Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 8 Jun 2021, at 06:17, David Ostrovsky <david.o...@gmail.com> wrote:



lucamilanesio schrieb am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021 um 01:33:23 UTC+2:
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

> The ESC consensus is that the community support for Gerrit v2.16 will end when v3.5 is released.

What does “community support” mean here? I know we won’t have completed our offline migration (using 2.16 obviously) by 3.5 release. As such, we (Qualcomm) are still likely to be “supporting” at least the offline NoteDb migration tool for another ~1 year.


What does this mean for request to update Google Chrome version
for PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI, done in this CL: [1]?

We should support both until v3.5 is released. After that, we can do a *huge* cleanup :-)

Given that Gerrit 3.5 will be released in October 2021, that would mean the delay
for months. For the record, we cannot verify 2.16 PolyGerrit changes on recent
Google Chrome release because it depends on outdated web component tester
WCT: [2].

Sure, that’s yet another reason for dropping v2.16: if we cannot guarantee that works, it is way better to be honest with the community and say that isn’t supported.
However, we cannot drop support overnight and leave time for people to get on a *safer* release, such as v3.2 or later.

I see a couple of options:

1. Remove PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI stable-2.16 ASAP. (Also note, that
    PolyGerrit UI is experimental in 2.16.x release and discouraged for
    production use. The PolyGerrit code base wasn't touched for years on this branch.)

Verification works at the moment, but I see your point that it may break at any time and we are helpless on that.

I think if it breaks and no one wants to put in the effort to fix it, that support is dropped. We don’t recommend anyone run 2.16 for anything other than migration purposes.


2. Consider to release Gerrit 3.5 earlier and have 3 major releases this year

I believe we need to leave more time for v3.4 to settle before going into yet another release cycle.

3. Split CI docker images for outdated and current Google Chrome versions. That
     would mean even more work on the CI pipeline side, obviously.

That is the best option for me.

If we are strict about only doing bugfixes on stable releases, it should be possible to cut a CI image for each stable release, and leave the CI image alone.

I actually proposed to move to “tagged” images with [1] but it was rejected during the review.
Should we reconsider?

It looks like there was a proposed suggestion to avoid manual configuration, not a rejection? Seems like a reasonable path to pursue.


Luca.



(not sure how much overhead that is for the CI scripts, of course.)

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich
I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays.
--
Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado


-- 
-- 
To unsubscribe, email repo-discuss...@googlegroups.com
More info at http://groups.google.com/group/repo-discuss?hl=en

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Repo and Gerrit Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to repo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.

Luca Milanesio

unread,
Jun 9, 2021, 1:15:59 PM (6 days ago) Jun 9
to Repo and Gerrit Discussion, Luca Milanesio

On 9 Jun 2021, at 17:35, Nasser Grainawi <nas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:



On Jun 9, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 09:43, Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@google.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:20 PM Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 8 Jun 2021, at 06:17, David Ostrovsky <david.o...@gmail.com> wrote:



lucamilanesio schrieb am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021 um 01:33:23 UTC+2:
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

> The ESC consensus is that the community support for Gerrit v2.16 will end when v3.5 is released.

What does “community support” mean here? I know we won’t have completed our offline migration (using 2.16 obviously) by 3.5 release. As such, we (Qualcomm) are still likely to be “supporting” at least the offline NoteDb migration tool for another ~1 year.

See [2]



What does this mean for request to update Google Chrome version
for PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI, done in this CL: [1]?

We should support both until v3.5 is released. After that, we can do a *huge* cleanup :-)

Given that Gerrit 3.5 will be released in October 2021, that would mean the delay
for months. For the record, we cannot verify 2.16 PolyGerrit changes on recent
Google Chrome release because it depends on outdated web component tester
WCT: [2].

Sure, that’s yet another reason for dropping v2.16: if we cannot guarantee that works, it is way better to be honest with the community and say that isn’t supported.
However, we cannot drop support overnight and leave time for people to get on a *safer* release, such as v3.2 or later.

I see a couple of options:

1. Remove PolyGerrit verification on Gerrit CI stable-2.16 ASAP. (Also note, that
    PolyGerrit UI is experimental in 2.16.x release and discouraged for
    production use. The PolyGerrit code base wasn't touched for years on this branch.)

Verification works at the moment, but I see your point that it may break at any time and we are helpless on that.

I think if it breaks and no one wants to put in the effort to fix it, that support is dropped. We don’t recommend anyone run 2.16 for anything other than migration purposes.

+1



2. Consider to release Gerrit 3.5 earlier and have 3 major releases this year

I believe we need to leave more time for v3.4 to settle before going into yet another release cycle.

3. Split CI docker images for outdated and current Google Chrome versions. That
     would mean even more work on the CI pipeline side, obviously.

That is the best option for me.

If we are strict about only doing bugfixes on stable releases, it should be possible to cut a CI image for each stable release, and leave the CI image alone.

I actually proposed to move to “tagged” images with [1] but it was rejected during the review.
Should we reconsider?

It looks like there was a proposed suggestion to avoid manual configuration, not a rejection? Seems like a reasonable path to pursue.

Nasser Grainawi

unread,
Jun 10, 2021, 1:40:13 PM (5 days ago) Jun 10
to Luca Milanesio, Repo and Gerrit Discussion

On Jun 9, 2021, at 12:15 PM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 17:35, Nasser Grainawi <nas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:



On Jun 9, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 09:43, Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@google.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:20 PM Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 8 Jun 2021, at 06:17, David Ostrovsky <david.o...@gmail.com> wrote:



lucamilanesio schrieb am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021 um 01:33:23 UTC+2:
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

> The ESC consensus is that the community support for Gerrit v2.16 will end when v3.5 is released.

What does “community support” mean here? I know we won’t have completed our offline migration (using 2.16 obviously) by 3.5 release. As such, we (Qualcomm) are still likely to be “supporting” at least the offline NoteDb migration tool for another ~1 year.

See [2]

I see a “Community Support” section under GerritForge, but the “General Support” section doesn’t seem to answer my question (though I see it was a bit open ended). Was the original statement intended to apply to GerritForge’s Community Support (as documented at [3])? If not, what does it practically mean?


Luca Milanesio

unread,
Jun 10, 2021, 1:46:57 PM (5 days ago) Jun 10
to Repo and Gerrit Discussion, Luca Milanesio

On 10 Jun 2021, at 18:39, Nasser Grainawi <nas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:



On Jun 9, 2021, at 12:15 PM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 17:35, Nasser Grainawi <nas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:



On Jun 9, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 09:43, Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@google.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:20 PM Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 8 Jun 2021, at 06:17, David Ostrovsky <david.o...@gmail.com> wrote:



lucamilanesio schrieb am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021 um 01:33:23 UTC+2:
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

> The ESC consensus is that the community support for Gerrit v2.16 will end when v3.5 is released.

What does “community support” mean here? I know we won’t have completed our offline migration (using 2.16 obviously) by 3.5 release. As such, we (Qualcomm) are still likely to be “supporting” at least the offline NoteDb migration tool for another ~1 year.

See [2]

I see a “Community Support” section under GerritForge, but the “General Support” section doesn’t seem to answer my question (though I see it was a bit open ended).

I believe you are right: we need a change to the support section to specify what the Gerrit Community (outside of GerritForge) does for EOL releases.

Was the original statement intended to apply to GerritForge’s Community Support (as documented at [3])?

For GerritForge yes, for the non-GerritForge members it needs more clarification on the support section.

Luca.

lucamilanesio

unread,
Jun 11, 2021, 8:21:23 PM (4 days ago) Jun 11
to Repo and Gerrit Discussion
On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 6:46:57 PM UTC+1 lucamilanesio wrote:

On 10 Jun 2021, at 18:39, Nasser Grainawi <nas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:



On Jun 9, 2021, at 12:15 PM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 17:35, Nasser Grainawi <nas...@codeaurora.org> wrote:



On Jun 9, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 9 Jun 2021, at 09:43, Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@google.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:20 PM Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 8 Jun 2021, at 06:17, David Ostrovsky <david.o...@gmail.com> wrote:



lucamilanesio schrieb am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021 um 01:33:23 UTC+2:
The ESC meeting notes have been published:

> The ESC consensus is that the community support for Gerrit v2.16 will end when v3.5 is released.

What does “community support” mean here? I know we won’t have completed our offline migration (using 2.16 obviously) by 3.5 release. As such, we (Qualcomm) are still likely to be “supporting” at least the offline NoteDb migration tool for another ~1 year.

See [2]

I see a “Community Support” section under GerritForge, but the “General Support” section doesn’t seem to answer my question (though I see it was a bit open ended).

I believe you are right: we need a change to the support section to specify what the Gerrit Community (outside of GerritForge) does for EOL releases.

Was the original statement intended to apply to GerritForge’s Community Support (as documented at [3])?

For GerritForge yes, for the non-GerritForge members it needs more clarification on the support section.

The matter has been clarified at [4]: the "community support" wasn't appropriate and the wording has been amended.
Thanks for your feedback.

Luca.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages