2023-12-11 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Maccabee Levine is next, followed by @Tod Olson 

Reminder:  Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes.  If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.

1 min

TCR Board Review

All

Nothing new today

5-10 min

Liaison Updates

@Maccabee Levine @Tod Olson  @Jakub Skoczen  @Craig McNally @Jenn Colt 

• CC: @Maccabee Levine

  • No meeting this week.

  • Two submissions already for Developer Advocate position.

• PC: @Tod Olson

  • More on meeting hygiene and more on Entity Management and forming a Linked Data SIG or WG.

• RMS Group: @Jakub Skoczen 

  • No update

• Security Team: @Craig McNally 

  • No important updates - business as usual

• Tri-council Application Formalization: @Jenn Colt  

  • Started working on the council questions.

5 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All

Quick updates only.  If we can't find volunteers for groups, we'll need to add the topic to our backlog and address it during dedicated discussion sessions.

• Distributed / Centralized Config

  • @Florian Gleixner No update.  RFC submitted?

• Communicating Breaking Changes

  • on hold

• Translation / Multilingual Support

  • skipped today

• TCR Process Improvements

  • @Maccabee Levine Gone through almost all of @Matt Weaver 's feedback, draft changes in a PR.  Moving along well.

10-20 min

RFCs

All

• Can we move either/both of these to the next stage?

  • 0004 Date-time values must comply with IETF RFC-3339

    • @Marc Johnson it is not in public review

    • controversial opinions

    • @Julian Ladisch the scope has been adjusted. We no longer require the database storage. ... It needs to be updated

    • An agreement has been reached but it needs to be reflected in the text before we move it to the next stag

RFC Process Improvements:

• Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22

  • Form a subgroup

  • The RFC is in draft, needs to go forward to "public review"

  • Jeremy Huff will create a subgroup to shepherd it through the remaining process, after the meeting.

  • The group has no objections to form a subgroup to bring it to the next stage.

• @Craig McNally: We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses.

  • Any volunteers?

  • "Update the metadata retro-actively: Asking for another RFC

• PR "Ask for an implementation timeline" is still open

  • Anything preventing us from merging this?

  • Not aware of blockers. Presumably only a trivial task to merge it.

Notes:

• Application Fomralization:

  • Has been in Draft Refinement over a week.  Need a subgroup

  • @Ingolf Kuss , @Tod Olson volunteered. @Craig McNally and @VBar as submitters.

  • @jroot (Unlicensed) : @Jeremy Huff may have wanted to be involved in this one.

  • @Craig McNally willing to lead.  No one considers it a conflict of interest for this stage.

• Date/time values

  • @Zak_Burke RFC is much larger than originally understood.  Still would be a way to improve things, but not a good way to move it forward in short term even though a good idea in the long term.  Maybe better approach is to just write better documentation to remove references to non-UTC timestamps.

  • @Craig McNally Still in preliminary review stage.  Can we at least move it past that part, to draft refinement.  Then get additional feedback, and submitter takes as much time as needed before public review?

  • @Zak_Burke Practically may be a dead end, not worth moving ahead.  But if the only way to do that is to move it forward, publicize and allow to die there, that's ok.

  • @Craig McNally Mixed up the order.  Could languish in RFC Preparation until there is a champion for it.

  • @Jenn Colt This RFC has been noticed outside the TC.  Reporting group was interested.  So ok to let die but should let people know.

  • @Zak_Burke Fine moving it forward if that's valuable.

  • @Craig McNally Can clean up documentation independent of the RFC process.  Awkward for TC to just leave in limbo.

  • @Tod Olson The early version affecting dates as stored would help reporting.

  • @Zak_Burke That was even more impossible.  Telling APIs that they have to accept non-UTC dates was impossible.  Storing those dates was "super-galactic impossible".  Nothing in RMB even begins to handle it.  Would this actually grow legs in front of a wider audience?  Would be a big effort.  Would anything change, or we'd reach the same conclusion?

  • @Craig McNally No way to know that.

  • @Zak_Burke will just kill it and write up an explanation on why.  Folks can notice that too.  Anyone can always pick it up later.

  • @Craig McNally Indicate in the RFC itself that it's being shelved/canceled.  So no one wondering why it's never been merged.

  • @Zak_Burke will do that.

• PR to adjust metadata retroactively?

  • hold off for now

• Asking for the implementation timeline

  • This was merged

1 min

Decision Log

All

Previous Notes:

• DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 16 created by @Julian Ladisch . Detailed analysis has been done to check if any of the breaking changes will impact FOLIO. There are a couple of unknowns, where it can't be easily verified if FOLIO is affected.

Last week:

• DR-000038 has been updated to Postgres 12 for Poppy Quesnelia and Postgres 16 for Ramsons...

• DR-000038 has been updated with the Postgres 13, 14, 15 and 16 module test results of the 35 biggest modules that access the database, FOLIO has 60 database accessing modules. Not a single issue has been found.

• Last week we voted "no" on supporting Postgres 13 in Quesnelia.

• Do we support a Service Patch in Quesnelia ? Sys Ops don't want to do upgrades "within the row". If we stay on 12 in Ramsons, we will be way out of support.

• On the operation side, for people managing many tenants, it is not practial to change postgres version from release to release equally for all tenants. Releases must therefore support multiple releases of Postgres (from Florian Gleixner)

• Tod: 

  Strawman: 

  Postgresql 12, with forward compatibility to PG16, i.e. database interactions must not rely on any features or behaviors removed in PG16.

• a "preliminary" or "bridge" support of 16.

• Owen: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9BBWRCNB/p1701105194657329

• In the decision record "

  PostgreSQL 12 and 16 are the officially supported PostgreSQL server versions for the Quesnelia FOLIO release; PostgreSQL 12 server support ends November 14, 2024. Only PostgreSQL 12 SQL features are allowed for the Quesnelia FOLIO release; they must also work under PostgreSQL 16.

  PostgreSQL 16 is the officially supported PostgreSQL version for the Ramson FOLIO release."

• Tod: 

  In the DR: 

  "Institutions are free to use any of the not officially supported PostgreSQL versions 13, 14, and 15 for their Quesnelia installation at their own risk."

• Julian: In the DR "Decision" section: Supported server Version vs. supported SQL feature Version.

• Marc: We will have to explain this to the community.

• Jeremy: We will not support all issues that might pop up when using Postgres 16. We will address all issues that pop up using Postgres 12.

• Marc: The developers perspective is: It must work on both 12 and 16. The only way to achieve this, is to only use features of 12. To use the overlap of features of 12 and 16. Do we have (a way to) check this constraint ?

• Julian: All this has already been explained. We should vote now.

• Jeremy: The votes (of last week and about DR-38) are not mutually exclusive, so we should vote.

• Craig should put that on the agenda for next week.

Today:

• Vote on ??? 

• @Julian Ladisch Vote on decision record. 

  • PostgreSQL 12 and 16 are the officially supported PostgreSQL server versions for the Quesnelia FOLIO release; PostgreSQL 12 server support ends November 14, 2024. Only PostgreSQL 12 SQL features are allowed for the Quesnelia FOLIO release; they must also work under PostgreSQL 16.

    PostgreSQL 16 is the officially supported PostgreSQL version for the Ramson FOLIO release.

• @Tod Olson put straw-man text in the chat last week.

  • Institutions are free to use any of the not officially supported PostgreSQL versions 13, 14, and 15 for their Quesnelia installation at their own risk.

• @jroot (Unlicensed) Suggest forward and backward compatibility.  New functionality should not rely on any 13-16 new features.  Very rare that Postgres features are removed from an older version.

• @Craig McNally Is Postgres 16 supported by AWS yet?

• @Julian Ladisch No, but coming in February or March.

• @Taras Spashchenko AWS RDS for PostgreSQL supports v16.1
  https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/PostgreSQLReleaseNotes/postgresql-versions.html#postgresql-versions-version161

  AWS RDS for Aurora PostgreSQL still supports PostgreSQL 16.0 in the Preview Environment only
  https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraPostgreSQLReleaseNotes/AuroraPostgreSQL.Updates.html#AuroraPostgreSQL.Updates.20180305.160X

• @Craig McNally So we are simply voting on the decision record.  Not sure what the alternatives are.  Then we will have to figure out how to communicate to various community members, perhaps posting in various channels, and is that good enough, who is responsible, etc.

• @Ingolf Kuss In summary for sysops, why does it say "Keep PostgresQL 12 while migrating tenants to Quesnalia".

  • @Julian Ladisch Because Poppy only supports 12, so have to keep on 12 until the migration to Q is complete.

  • @Ingolf Kuss Depends how you migrate.  With downtime you can migrate Postgres version first.  But I understand.

  • @Marc Johnson Technically you don't have to upgrade the DB at all for Quesnalia, since we support v12.

  • @Craig McNally It is a little confusing that we say we stop supporting 12 on November 14, 2024. 

  • @Marc Johnson People will still be using Quesnalia when that date happens.  So we are saying that we are not supporting 12 for the whole lifecycle of Quesnalia.

  • @jroot (Unlicensed) I think the November 14 date refers to Postgres community support ending, not FOLIO community support ending.  So effective end of support just for Ramsons?

  • @Marc Johnson No, end of support for v12 whether or not you upgrade to Ramsons.

  • @Tod Olson To Jason's point, the Posgres global development group has declared end of support for v12.  FOLIO has not declared that.  Is it less confusing in "PostgreSQL must be migrated from 12 to 16 before migrating a tenant to Ramson and by November 14, 2024, whatever comes first." if we remove the part about November 2024, and add a note referring to the Postgres global developer group ending support on that date.  It's already mentioned so maybe we don't have to reiterate.

  • @Marc Johnson That would change the policy, so we support 12 for the entire duration of Quesnalia.  So reduces confusion by change in policy.

  • @Tod Olson The issue is that it's not our project forcing the upgrade away from 12; it's the postgres community.  As Julian states, how could we actually support Postgres past that date?

  • @jroot (Unlicensed) FOLIO community has never provided Postgres patches, so moot

  • @Marc Johnson Either mandating that people have to go to 16 during Quesnalia, or we are agreeing to support an unsupported Postgres during Quesnalia.

  • @Owen Stephens Can we define "support" in this context?  It doesn't seem impossible that we could continue to fix FOLIO issues regarding Postgres 12, even if we don't fix Postgres issues themselves.

    • @jroot (Unlicensed) Agree with Owen.  Support in sysops person context means "vetted to work with this version; we built it for this".

    • @Marc Johnson We are keeping all dev tooling for 12, so in that context our support for 16 is not what we are actually doing.

    • @Craig McNally All we are saying is that the modules seem to work with 16, and FYI Postgres ends life in November 2024.

  • @Craig McNally Can we vote now, and decide on communication plan later?  Discussed already many meetings.

  • @Craig McNally Voting only on decision language.  Not the parts above, or communication plan.  Can make those other adjustments on Wednesday or out-of-band.

  • Approved with six votes in favor, four against.

  • @Craig McNally Finish the communication part on Wednesday.

15-25 min

Officially Supported Technologies

All

Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists

• Check in on progress... does anything else require attention?

Quesnelia Officially Supported Technologies discussion:

• React ^18.2 is correct (@Zak_Burke)

• @Zak_Burke will check RTL support for React 18

• Cypress ^9.1.1: Talk to the people who use it and find out what they would like to do

• Update Grails from 5 to 6:

  • @Craig McNally: I would rather make the statement that we need to go to 6; otherwise, the longer we wait and deliberate and evaluate and so forth that means it's less time for developers to do the actual work.

  • @Marc Johnson: 100% completely agree

Moved to the next meeting:

• Formalize decisions on the following.  Quesnelia is the last chance to upgrade to avoid running unsupported versions:

  • Postgres 13 → Quesnelia 

  • Grails 6 → Quesnelia

• Postgres 15 → Ramsons

  • Wait until we see the result of Kitfox testing

• Attempt to move Quesnelia from DRAFT → ACCEPTED → ACTIVE since the relevant milestones have already passed.

1 min

Upcoming Meetings

All

• Dec 13, 2023 - Topic TBD

• Dec 18, 2023 - Regular TC meeting

• ...

• Jan 2, 2024 - Chairs Meeting (Tentative)

NA

Zoom Chat

You  to  Taras (Direct Message) 11:02 AM
Taras Spaschenko right?

You  to  Everyone 11:10 AM
Doing attendance for the minutes, I see Jakub is here now -- missed earlier for RMS Group

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 11:12 AM
I believe we specifically discussed it being fine in the RFC update group

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 11:19 AM
To be clear, I just was advocating for not closing it silently, closing is fine!

Taras  to  Everyone 11:40 AM
AWS RDS for PostgreSQL supports v16.1 https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/PostgreSQLReleaseNotes/postgresql-versions.html#postgresql-versions-version161 AWS RDS for Aurora PostgreSQL still supports PostgreSQL 16.0 in the Preview Environment only https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraPostgreSQLReleaseNotes/AuroraPostgreSQL.Updates.html#AuroraPostgreSQL.Updates.20180305.160X

Julian Ladisch  to  Everyone 11:41 AM
AWS has been supporting Postgres 16 since Nov 20, 2023: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2023/11/amazon-rds-postgresql-major-version-16/

Julian Ladisch  to  Everyone 11:42 AM
FOLIO doesn't have resources to support PostgreSQL 12 without the upstream support of the PostgreSQL people.

Marc Johnson 11:43 AM
Sure, but we’ve chosen to support it for a release that doesn’t go out of support until after that

Craig McNally  to  Everyone 11:45 AM
Please continue discussing... I need to step away for a moment... brb

Julian Ladisch  to  Everyone 11:46 AM
If FOLIO cannot provide PostgreSQL 12 security fixes after November 14, 2024, how can FOLIO state that it officially supports PostgreSQL 12 after that date?

Craig McNally  to  Everyone 11:46 AM
back

Tod Olson  to  Everyone 11:50 AM
How about: Note: PostrgreSQL Gobal Developer Group has declared PG12 is EOL as of Nov. 24, 2024. FOLIO will not supply PG12-specific fixes after this date.

Tod Olson  to  Everyone 11:51 AM
... FOLIO development tooling for PG12 will also end by this date.

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 11:52 AM
It sounds like we are suggesting they go ahead and move to 16. If they read it that way is that ok?

Marc Johnson 11:53 AM
Sure, the use of MUST does not give me the impression of a suggestion

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 11:56 AM
Green checks?

Tod Olson 11:56 AM
Yes, I think just misspoke.

Jakub Skoczen  to  Everyone 11:56 AM
I can’t use the unmute button
For whatever reason

Decision Log Review

All

Review decisions which are in progress.  Can any of them be accepted?  rejected?

Translation Subgroup

All

Since we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?

Communicating Breaking Changes

All

Since we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?

Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep

All

Previous Notes:

• A workflow for these pages. When do they transition from one state to another. Do we even need statuses at all ?

• Stripes architecture group has some questions about the Poppy release.

• Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how do we pass along that knowledge ? E.g. changes in Nodes and in the UI boxes. How to communicate this ? We have a large number of teams, all have to be aware of it.  TC should be alerted that changes are happening. We have a couple of dedicated channels for that. Most dev ops have subscribed to these channels. How can dev ops folk raise issues to the next level of community awareness ? There hasn't been a specific piece of TC to move that along.

• Craig: There is a fourth group, "Capacity Planning" or "Release Planning". Slack is the de facto communication channel.  There are no objections to using Slack. An example is the Java 17 RFC. 

• Craig: The TC gets it on the agenda and we will discuss it. The TC gets the final say.

• Marc Johnson: We shouldn’t use the DevOps Channel. The dev ops folks have made it clear that it should only be used for support requests made to them.

• Jakub: Our responsibility is to avoid piling up technical debt.

• Marc: Some set of people have to actually make the call. Who lowers the chequered flag ?

• Craig: It needs to ultimately come to the TC at least for awareness. There is a missing piece. Capacity Planning needs to provide input here. 

• Marc: Stakeholders / Capacity Planning could make that decision. Who makes the decision ? Is it the government or is it some parts of the body ?

• Marc: the developers community, the dev ops community and sys ops are involved. For example the Spring Framework discussion or the Java 17 discussion. But it was completely separate to the TC decision. It is a coordination and communication effort.

• Marc: Maybe the TC needs to let go that they are the decision makers so that they be a moderating group.

• Jakub: I agree with Marc. But we are not a system operating group. Dependency management should be in the responsibility of Release management. There are structures in the project for that.

• Jason Root: I agree with Jakub and with Marc also. Policies should drive operational/release/support aspects of Folio.

• Jason Root: If the idea of “support” is that frameworks are supported, then of course the project should meet that.

• Marc Johnson
  Some group needs to inform OleksAii when a relevant policy event occurs.
  These documents effectively ARE the manifestation of the policy.

• Craig: This is a topic for the next Monday session.

• Craig to see if Oleksii Petrenko could join us to discuss the process for updating the officially supported technologies lists.

Dev Documentation Visibility

All

Possible topic/activity for a Wednesday session:

• Discuss/brainstorm:

  • Ideas for the type of developer-facing documentation we think would be most helpful for new developers

  • How we might bring existing documentation up to date and ensure it's consistent 

  • etc.