17:01:01 <djmitche> #startmeeting weekly
17:01:01 <bb-supy> Meeting started Tue Feb  7 17:01:01 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is djmitche. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:01 <bb-supy> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:01:01 <bb-supy> The meeting name has been set to 'weekly'
17:01:07 <djmitche> #topic Introduction
17:01:10 <tardyp> hi
17:01:16 * sa2ajj waves
17:01:18 <djmitche> https://titanpad.com/buildbot-agenda
17:01:19 <djmitche> hi!
17:01:26 * sa2ajj . o O (oh, i got here in time)
17:01:32 * djmitche in toronto today
17:01:35 <djmitche> yep!
17:01:39 <djmitche> who else is here?
17:02:06 * djmitche marks "crickets" as present
17:02:23 <noc0lour> I'm here :)
17:02:26 <djmitche> yay!
17:02:36 <djmitche> ok,
17:02:41 <djmitche> #topic Week in Review
17:02:56 <bdbaddog> present!
17:03:12 <djmitche> hmm, no weekly update email :(
17:03:14 <tardyp> so this week lot of py3 stuff on going.
17:03:47 <djmitche> I told catlee that Buildbot was almost 100% py3, and he said "we should switch back!"
17:03:48 <tardyp> we got a py3 builder in the CI to take care of the regression. The goal is to have a blacklist of tests that do not pass
17:03:55 <djmitche> awesome
17:03:56 <tardyp> and empty that list eventually
17:04:02 <djmitche> and it's only a small fraction of tests, right?
17:04:23 <tardyp> correct
17:04:40 <tardyp> I have been trying to prepare the release this week mostly
17:04:47 <djmitche> great
17:04:48 <tardyp> trying to fix the last issues in the integration
17:05:07 <djmitche> #topic Releases
17:05:08 <djmitche> :)
17:05:09 <tardyp> I just found out that the worker is not yet ready for officially be release in py3
17:05:20 <djmitche> oh?
17:05:27 <tardyp> I tried to start it, and it wont connect to the py2 master
17:05:35 <djmitche> hmm
17:05:40 <djmitche> PB incompatibility?
17:05:43 <djmitche> #undo
17:05:43 <bb-supy> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x8068569d0>
17:05:43 <tardyp> probably this would have worked with a py3 master
17:06:05 <tardyp> so py2 pb -> py3 pb looks like not yet fully ready
17:06:06 <djmitche> that induces some sadness on my part :(
17:06:15 <djmitche> but fixable, I'm sure!
17:06:21 <tardyp> yes
17:06:40 <djmitche> ok, onward..
17:06:42 <djmitche> #topic Releases
17:06:56 <djmitche> #info 0.9.4 release is in the works
17:07:05 <djmitche> sa2ajj: what are your thoughts about 0.8.x?
17:07:30 <sa2ajj> i want to make a release (still!) and maybe submit a couple of 0.8.x specific PRs.
17:07:33 <djmitche> From Andrii on the mailing list:
17:07:36 <djmitche> It would be great for someone to upload buildbot 0.8.14 to pypi —
17:07:36 <djmitche> there's only buildbot-slave now.
17:07:57 <sa2ajj> however right now i'm regaining energy
17:08:03 <sa2ajj> so most likely no release until march
17:08:17 <zware> I'd like to note from the peanut gallery that 0.8.13 and 0.8.14 are not tagged on GitHub
17:08:27 <sa2ajj> zware: correct
17:08:49 <djmitche> sa2ajj: ok, could I mention all that on the ML?
17:08:52 <tardyp> I have sent a few email already saying that we are looking for a new eight maintainer, as you weren't answering
17:08:54 <sa2ajj> i'll review the tags situation by the next weekly... so maybe somebody else would step in
17:08:59 <sa2ajj> djmitche: sure
17:09:03 <djmitche> ok
17:09:07 <bb-github> [13buildbot] 15noc0lour commented on issue #2635: We are not closing file handles in `WorkerFileUpload`. That's a separate PR I'd say. 02https://git.io/vD4MT
17:09:16 <sa2ajj> tardyp: that'd be great to have another pair of hands
17:09:29 * sa2ajj is not giving up though [yet?]
17:09:29 <djmitche> indeed
17:09:33 <djmitche> haha, ok :)
17:09:43 <djmitche> anything more for the topic?
17:09:50 <tardyp> ok. I don't want to push you away, just help
17:09:50 <sa2ajj> last week i had a vacation
17:10:03 <sa2ajj> however i just did not touch *any* computers in the house :)
17:10:29 <sa2ajj> now it feels better but will probably require a couple of weeks more: only really simple things
17:10:33 <sa2ajj> <done>
17:10:34 <djmitche> I don't know if the word "staycation" echoed outside north america
17:10:50 <djmitche> but that sounds like one
17:10:55 <sa2ajj> oh, there's a word for that. i'll spread it :)
17:11:07 <djmitche> hehe
17:11:16 <djmitche> #topic Trac -> Github migraiton
17:11:27 <djmitche> http://trac.buildbot.net/ticket/3623
17:12:20 <djmitche> sa2ajj: are you still interested in returning to that?
17:13:03 <tardyp> I can take over if you want
17:13:14 <sa2ajj> did anyone look at the stuff i had?
17:13:30 * sa2ajj . o O (damn and the wifi went down for a whlie)
17:13:47 <djmitche> I looked generally and it seemed to be largely sufficient
17:13:48 <sa2ajj> i think that we should do that for two reasons:
17:13:57 <djmitche> if we lose a little detail (e.g., attachments) that's OK by me
17:14:15 <sa2ajj> * a lot of people already have accounts at gh (people => potential contributors etc)
17:14:34 <sa2ajj> * i did not see any really active development on the trac front
17:15:08 <djmitche> agreed, esp the first point
17:15:20 <djmitche> lately I've avoided contributing to things that aren't on github
17:15:23 <djmitche> unless I'm really motivated
17:15:42 <sa2ajj> tardyp: i think i'll find the energy to review what i did by the next weekly (now i also confirmed the actual time, so i'll make sure i join) and we can decide then
17:15:53 <djmitche> that sounds good
17:15:56 <djmitche> there's not a rush
17:16:11 <djmitche> we've bene on trac for a looong time, a few more weeks is fine
17:16:15 <tardyp> looks good, I have other business to day this week
17:16:24 <tardyp> to do
17:16:31 <djmitche> #info sa2ajj will look at current status and have more next week
17:16:46 <djmitche> should we move on to "    Distribute single-file Buildbot-worker using something like pyinstaller"?
17:16:58 * sa2ajj nods
17:17:12 <sa2ajj> what's pyinstaller?
17:17:32 * sa2ajj reads the web site...
17:18:07 <bb-github> [13buildbot] 15tardyp opened pull request #2754: temporarily remove py3 advertisement from buildbot worker setup.py (06master...06workerpy3) 02https://git.io/vD4Dp
17:18:10 <sa2ajj> on the first sight looks too good to be true (based on the previous experience)
17:18:13 <tardyp> the goal is to deliver a single binary of a buildbot worker
17:18:18 <sa2ajj> anybody has hands-on experience w/ it?
17:18:21 <djmitche> #topic     Distribute single-file Buildbot-worker using something like pyinstaller
17:18:22 <tardyp> like the go binaries
17:18:32 <tardyp> rutsky: has been working on that
17:18:40 <sa2ajj> (previous experience with other tools, to clarify)
17:18:43 <rutsky> I'm working on e2e tests still
17:18:44 <tardyp> and has some poc in its e2e branch
17:19:05 <rutsky> to recall: I made POC single-file distribution of buildbot-worker on linux
17:19:47 <rutsky> I want to setup e2e test and then setup building single-file distribution of worker (and maybe master) on Linux/Windows (maybe others), and testing of them
17:19:59 <sa2ajj> does it bundle the python as well?
17:20:25 <bb-github> [13buildbot] 15tardyp commented on issue #2754: @rodrigc please let me know if this is something we can fix quickly within buildbot and if I may wait a bit before release with a fix 02https://git.io/vD4y3
17:20:26 <rutsky> I used pyinstaller to create single-file distribution: it wraps python executable and all deps into single executable
17:20:32 <rutsky> sa2ajj: yes
17:21:15 <sa2ajj> if it does, i'd say distributing such an executable sounds like a good idea
17:21:29 <rutsky> I plan to include in e2e tests current smoke tests and probably py3 worker
17:21:59 <sa2ajj> one concern: it wouldn't be available from pypi, would it?  if not, then potential users would have to search several places for the stuff they need.
17:22:15 <rutsky> sa2ajj: yes, it should simplify worker deployments --- it will make it more "modern"/"go-like", when you just copy "single binary"
17:22:25 <sa2ajj> or, more specifically, different ways to install the things...
17:22:38 <rutsky> sa2ajj: yes, AFAIK there is no way to distribute in on PyPI
17:22:52 <tardyp> indeed, and we need to also distribute a signing file aside from that binary. we planned to use github release for that
17:23:07 <sa2ajj> anyway, an up-to-date link in the tutorial would help a lot
17:23:31 <sa2ajj> is there a ticket re the things to take care of?
17:23:36 <djmitche> there is a "dumb binary" option on pypi
17:23:42 <djmitche> potentially it could be uploaded there
17:24:04 <rutsky> sa2ajj: http://trac.buildbot.net/ticket/3657
17:24:47 <sa2ajj> rutsky: thx
17:24:48 <rutsky> sa2ajj: but this ticket only covers single-file distribution progress
17:25:20 <bb-github> [13buildbot] 15tardyp commented on pull request #2753 145d2dc2e: I already disable that test in one of my PR I believe we should fix the thing properly. probably hardcoding the whole log is not a good idea, but looking at some of its content looks better 02https://git.io/vD4SU
17:25:38 <sa2ajj> a totally side note: windows would love a single binary as a service ;)
17:25:45 <djmitche> I bet :)
17:25:53 <nicolas17> you mean a Windows service?
17:25:57 <sa2ajj> yup
17:26:02 <nicolas17> that seems contradictory :P
17:26:14 <sa2ajj> almost
17:26:29 <nicolas17> IMO the whole point of a 'single binary' is that you don't need any special installation step, if you want a service you'd need an installer setting it up
17:26:41 <sa2ajj> nope
17:27:08 <nicolas17> and if you have an installer, why bother packing things up into a single executable
17:27:12 <sa2ajj> the bb worker currently can install itself (or almost like that)
17:27:26 <sa2ajj> since it uses win32 extensions
17:27:34 * rutsky feeling like "Windows wars veteran", recalling experience of setting up Buildbot as Windows service...
17:27:41 <sa2ajj> so the same binary could just be run 'register yourself' and your are done
17:27:45 <tardyp> the problem on windows, is you need a python first
17:28:04 <sa2ajj> well, that could be looked into (i mean the details)
17:28:20 <nicolas17> for this, I have knowledge and no time  >.<
17:28:35 <sa2ajj> my experience w/ non-python binaries is: you can have the same binary do the job *and* make it register itself as a service
17:29:00 <sa2ajj> a ticket for not forgetting it would suffice at this stage, i believe
17:29:01 <djmitche> let's get this working for linux first
17:29:10 <rutsky> on Linux Twisted solves most of service issues, on windows Twisted doesn't handle nothing due to significant different nature of services on windows
17:29:18 <djmitche> since I think the windows experience amongst us is all in the "..and no time" category
17:29:51 <bb-github> [13buildbot] 15mention-bot commented on issue #2755: @noc0lour, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @rutsky, @tardyp and @rodrigc to be potential reviewers. 02https://git.io/vD4SN
17:30:09 <sa2ajj> per http://trac.buildbot.net/wiki/RunningBuildbotOnWindows#Service we could have a slightly different binary for windows
17:30:40 <sa2ajj> anyway, let's not focus on this now (yes, linux first!!!)
17:30:45 <djmitche> we're running over time for the meeting, but this is productive so keep going :)
17:31:00 <tardyp> I need to go.
17:31:17 <tardyp> ttyl guys!
17:31:29 <sa2ajj> see you
17:32:26 <djmitche> thanks tardyp
17:32:42 <djmitche> maybe we can just wrap up :)
17:32:59 <djmitche> #endmeeting