Thanks everyone who was able to make it to the meeting today! For those who weren't able to make it, here are few important links:
Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-04/fedora-meeting-... Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-04/fedora-meeting-... Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-04/fedora-meeting-...
Log (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-04/fedora-meeting-...
Here's a summary of the meeting (link to the HTML and text versions above):
========================================== #fedora-meeting-1: Cloud WG weekly meeting ==========================================
Meeting started by number80 at 17:02:17 UTC. The full logs are available athttp://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-04/fedora-meeting-... .
Meeting summary --------------- * roll call (number80, 17:02:30)
* Release cadence and lifecyle (number80, 17:08:47) * AGREED: cadence release to be monthly + trigger-based updates until we're more confident on automated testing (rbergeron) (number80, 17:24:10)
* Product Branding (number80, 17:25:06) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/3 (number80, 17:25:30) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/3 a ticket has been opened on our trac (number80, 17:25:41) * AGREED: jzb will complete the ticket https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/3 and forward it to the design team (number80, 17:30:10)
* PRD (number80, 17:32:47) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/3 it hasn't changed much (or at all) since last meeting (number80, 17:33:24) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD (number80, 17:34:14) * if PRD is still stuck next week, organize a mini-hackfest to fix that (few hours) (number80, 17:42:53) * AGREED: frankieonuonga taking lead on cloudstack/ jzb on Release/Product Overview (number80, 17:44:09)
* Release criteria for post-F20 cloud images (number80, 17:50:57) * ACTION: rbergeron to poke mr. neary re: personas (rbergeron, 17:50:57) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/4 trac ticket opened by mattdm on that matter (+ discussion kickstarted on the list) (number80, 17:51:54) * AGREED: postponing the discussion about release criteria after F20 release (discussion could continue in the ticket) (number80, 17:59:35)
* Relation with server WG (number80, 18:01:16) * AGREED: move the discussion about the cloud/server WG relation and their overlap to the list (number80, 18:04:00)
* Openfloor (number80, 18:04:21) * we have nightly qcow nightly builds thanks to Rel-eng koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=all&view=tree&method=appliance&order=-id (number80, 18:04:56)
Meeting ended at 18:09:20 UTC.
Action Items ------------ * rbergeron to poke mr. neary re: personas
Action Items, by person ----------------------- * rbergeron * rbergeron to poke mr. neary re: personas * **UNASSIGNED** * (none)
People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * number80 (92) * rbergeron (52) * frankieonuonga (31) * mattdm (30) * jzb (21) * geppetto (7) * zodbot (5) * gholms (3) * jzb_ (1)
Best regards,
H.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:14:48 +0100 H. Guémar hguemar@fedoraproject.org escribió:
- Release cadence and lifecyle (number80, 17:08:47)
- AGREED: cadence release to be monthly + trigger-based updates
until we're more confident on automated testing (rbergeron) (number80, 17:24:10)
Hi,
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable, but we (with Release Engineering hat on) does not have any ability to do what you mention here. the Best we can do is to do time based updated images. you needto engage QA to see what can be tested. To date the Cloud image testing in Fedora 20 has been completely and utterly horrible. I know some has been happening, but feedback on that is not going through the right places. I suggest that if you want Release Engineering and QA's help as you clearly need it you properly engage with them. its all well and good to come up with some Utopian future view. but you need to keep a foot in reality and work with those around you.
Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:16:25 -0600 Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:14:48 +0100 H. Guémar hguemar@fedoraproject.org escribió:
- Release cadence and lifecyle (number80, 17:08:47)
- AGREED: cadence release to be monthly + trigger-based updates
until we're more confident on automated testing (rbergeron) (number80, 17:24:10)
Hi,
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable, but we (with Release Engineering hat on) does not have any ability to do what you mention here. the Best we can do is to do time based updated images. you needto engage QA to see what can be tested. To date the Cloud image testing in Fedora 20 has been completely and utterly horrible. I know some has been happening, but feedback on that is not going through the right places. I suggest that if you want Release Engineering and QA's help as you clearly need it you properly engage with them. its all well and good to come up with some Utopian future view. but you need to keep a foot in reality and work with those around you.
additionally https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1202#comment:12
Dennis
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:16:25PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
- AGREED: cadence release to be monthly + trigger-based updates
until we're more confident on automated testing (rbergeron)
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable, but we (with Release Engineering hat on) does not have any ability to do what you mention here. the Best we can do is to do
So, what would it take to be able to do it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:39:07 -0500 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org escribió:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:16:25PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
- AGREED: cadence release to be monthly + trigger-based updates
until we're more confident on automated testing (rbergeron)
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable, but we (with Release Engineering hat on) does not have any ability to do what you mention here. the Best we can do is to do
So, what would it take to be able to do it?
Well the Fedora release Cycle is what it is. I do not think you can change that. I think that some of the wording used is poorly chosen.
I think you are actually talking about updates images and not release images. We have no way to determine how big an update set is so that would be needed. something to monitor updates for security bugs to trigger image creation. you need to assume we have no tooling to do anything you want. so someone will need to write and maintain it. you will also need to take your proposal to FESCo and have it signed off as okay.
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
thank you for your feedback.
I suggest that if you want Release Engineering and QA's help as you
clearly need it you properly engage with them
+1 I'll repeat it as much as needed: Nobody in the WG want to add more burden to Rel-eng or QA. Either we're able to automate things or do it ourselves in close collaboration with the aforementioned teams.
We have no way to determine how big an update set is so that would be
needed. something to monitor updates for security bugs to trigger image creation. you need to assume we have no tooling to do anything you want. so someone will need to write and maintain it.
it could be possible to use fedmsg to monitor updates, technically do-able, we may need to synchronize with Rel-Eng and infra for the proper architecture.
Best regards, H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Gilmore" dennis@ausil.us To: cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 6:13:40 PM Subject: Re: Minutes from today's (12/04/2013) cloud WG meeting
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:39:07 -0500 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org escribió:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:16:25PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
- AGREED: cadence release to be monthly + trigger-based updates
until we're more confident on automated testing (rbergeron)
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable, but we (with Release Engineering hat on) does not have any ability to do what you mention here. the Best we can do is to do
So, what would it take to be able to do it?
Well the Fedora release Cycle is what it is. I do not think you can change that. I think that some of the wording used is poorly chosen.
I think you are actually talking about updates images and not release images. We have no way to determine how big an update set is so that would be needed. something to monitor updates for security bugs to trigger image creation. you need to assume we have no tooling to do anything you want. so someone will need to write and maintain it. you will also need to take your proposal to FESCo and have it signed off as okay.
Didn't spot propose something related to monthly pushes around the time that Flock took place? Seems like the rebuilds could occur simultaneously with pushes to reduce the burden of rebuilding images. That being said, we are still left in a position where it increases rel-eng load; not really sure how to avoid that other than having a group of people who are willing to help out.
Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSn7ckAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRqxAP/2U60OAHXl1HWHwh3IwaXs2X /1FedJ/7HGEFDRT4aMMD9rs2AarK5PB8lbhUeDwezeAc5y+RZWvkmBgNWumuCRGw QnnUfZBzUPfVcAqc5zlCW9U3c/9uoWReVoTgqRusEgWPE5OZtZ2FSFrv9dxn1KV/ Xv1CDomd2bw39FnFHiu79xUnER8tnNkz23YI6cbTBXFCU+Dx754xklDqyMcdQ+E4 BJEkOa/cq5trlchYfw3DTYUlFpaeHUQg9ULkhNITsqG8AgwXfCykr7rWpz6WhcIn S1SoX4HYB13Nxz76YrqFf73Phisa0uGybTHAIWhCJlHXFYuUWYQPUvOfNNZRmB4k uKowi22Jrl9/3TbeAVlLMOQnTzEoDnFdx8j2Pr52HSsnmy3esn1yhc3j4mzh1yu6 tOG2iqlpftkgvHEZmJP8Rkkj8QzaWjzA1NEBgsz20yYAe+h2PSn/H1Xo3GR9xqIv mSCp8DKgB+uRPECP1dkDmzLoU9N/fU6rrIybMhxaEdmY77HwrZy0T21hPkIIE9jd eyYaJv6+OP2GIriBRGkcfl8YCZTV9LZRd3sxcD26aPDn4gQ/0fAnDdJK8ul7nAac EPgme8yriMuow+fnsbUYWC25ASDI8bE+wG7n5KVOwlxQjsm7D00XMOKWmHGGiuAe 9M62Mr3o50ZjkNHlUui/ =M/UD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:22:20 -0500 (EST) Sam Kottler skottler@redhat.com escribió:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Gilmore" dennis@ausil.us To: cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 6:13:40 PM Subject: Re: Minutes from today's (12/04/2013) cloud WG meeting
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:39:07 -0500 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org escribió:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:16:25PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
- AGREED: cadence release to be monthly + trigger-based
updates until we're more confident on automated testing (rbergeron)
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable, but we (with Release Engineering hat on) does not have any ability to do what you mention here. the Best we can do is to do
So, what would it take to be able to do it?
Well the Fedora release Cycle is what it is. I do not think you can change that. I think that some of the wording used is poorly chosen.
I think you are actually talking about updates images and not release images. We have no way to determine how big an update set is so that would be needed. something to monitor updates for security bugs to trigger image creation. you need to assume we have no tooling to do anything you want. so someone will need to write and maintain it. you will also need to take your proposal to FESCo and have it signed off as okay.
Didn't spot propose something related to monthly pushes around the time that Flock took place? Seems like the rebuilds could occur simultaneously with pushes to reduce the burden of rebuilding images. That being said, we are still left in a position where it increases rel-eng load; not really sure how to avoid that other than having a group of people who are willing to help out.
That was proposed, and would be an awesome trigger for an updates image. but nothing more than hey we should change how we push out updates has been done. The problem with Ideas is they are great but far from implementation. we need people to help write tooling so that the cost of things like a updates compose is not high.
Dennis
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:13:40PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable, but we (with Release Engineering hat on) does not have any ability to do what you mention here. the Best we can do is to do
So, what would it take to be able to do it?
Well the Fedora release Cycle is what it is. I do not think you can change that.
This is in the context of the future plans for Fedora, so we are literally talking about changing what "as Fedora itself releases" means. The context of this discussion is in response to the post from Phil Knirsch (from the Base WG) post in devel asking about potential release cycle changes.
I think that some of the wording used is poorly chosen.
I think you are actually talking about updates images and not release images. We have no way to determine how big an update set is so that
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making here. The images would need to be stand-alone, with all packages included, not just updates.
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 13:45 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:13:40PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable
[...]
I think that some of the wording used is poorly chosen.
I think you are actually talking about updates images and not release images. We have no way to determine how big an update set is so that
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making here. The images would need to be stand-alone, with all packages included, not just updates.
I _think_ Dennis here is talking about the difference between fedora/updates ... and that if we have a "release" image of say F21 then that would be thought of like the fedora tree/repo. and couldn't be changed ever. But that's not we want to do anyway. And we could do "update" images, which would be new images in addition to the release image (what we all want, I think).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:26:14 -0500 James Antill james@fedoraproject.org escribió:
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 13:45 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:13:40PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
So we are not going to be able to do this period. you will only be able to release as Fedora itself releases. doing periodic updated images can be doable
[...]
I think that some of the wording used is poorly
chosen. I think you are actually talking about updates images and not release images. We have no way to determine how big an update set is so that
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making here. The images would need to be stand-alone, with all packages included, not just updates.
I _think_ Dennis here is talking about the difference between fedora/updates ... and that if we have a "release" image of say F21 then that would be thought of like the fedora tree/repo. and couldn't be changed ever. But that's not we want to do anyway. And we could do "update" images, which would be new images in addition to the release image (what we all want, I think).
James is pretty spot on, a release image would be F20 F21 F22 etc and updates image would be F20+updates. its to do with the fedora release the images line up with.
note if we have 3 supported fedora releases at a time we would need to be making and testing 3 lots of updates images.
Dennis