Server WG Quick Vote: Firewall status API for rolekit
by Stephen Gallagher
The Beta release criteria for rolekit were largely copied from the PRD
and Technical Specification. One of these bits was this:
"Release-blocking roles must be able to report their status in regard to
the system firewall as described in the technical specification."
The tech spec reads:
"Roles will be required to support the following API: ... A query
interface providing metadata information about the role (not all roles
must implement all parts of this, bold lines are mandatory): ... A
list of the ports that the role operates on, as well as data about
whether those ports are currently firewalled."
Unfortunately, rolekit does not currently have this capability. Thomas
and I decided during development to defer that (because this information
is available through the firewalld API and firewall-cmd as well), but we
forgot to communicate it to the rest of the Server SIG.
As a result, we (the Server WG) need to make a decision: Do we believe
that this firewall status API is important enough to slip Beta. Because
there's no chance we will be able to implement this in time for
tonight's compose.
Proposal: The requirement to be able to list the role's related firewall
state is deferred to Fedora 22 and should be removed from the release
criteria.
I am +1. Please vote immediately, as we do not have much time.
9 years, 6 months
Server WG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2014-10-21)
by Stephen Gallagher
===================================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-10-21)
===================================================================
Meeting started by sgallagh at 15:00:33 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-10-21/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* roll call (sgallagh, 15:00:33)
* Agenda (sgallagh, 15:06:12)
* Agenda Item: Fedora 21 Install Media (sgallagh, 15:06:33)
* Agenda Item: Fedora 21 Beta Status (sgallagh, 15:06:33)
* Fedora 21 Install Media (sgallagh, 15:08:37)
* AGREED: Server WG finds it acceptable that all netinstalls be
universal and select Server as the default installation environment
in interactive Anaconda. (+8, 0, -0) (sgallagh, 15:21:43)
* Fedora 21 Beta Status (sgallagh, 15:22:26)
* LINK: https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/21/Server.html
(adamw, 15:25:26)
* danofsatx has been running tests against the Domain Controller Role.
Is encountering an issue with named. (sgallagh, 15:26:50)
* ACTION: junland to jump right in with TC testing (sgallagh,
15:27:40)
* ACTION: danofsatx to file a bug against FreeIPA for the named start
failure (sgallagh, 15:28:43)
* we really need to run those tests against Beta TC4/RC1 (sgallagh,
15:29:23)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_TC4_Server
(sgallagh, 15:29:35)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria#Server_Pro...
(sgallagh, 15:30:19)
* for anyone who doesn't know, you can nominate blocker bugs at
https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug , or just mark
them as blocking the bug 'BetaBlocker' and explain why in a comment.
(sgallagh, 15:32:01)
* Go/No-Go Meeting is Thursday, which means we hopefully don't have
any blockers but if there are any we need to know *today* to have
any chance of avoiding slippage. (sgallagh, 15:35:25)
* It would be appreciated if anyone with spare cycles spends some time
testing Beta TC4 today. (sgallagh, 15:36:03)
* Open Floor (sgallagh, 15:40:57)
* Product GUI install media still doesn't have the Product Logo
(sgallagh, 15:46:34)
* No risk to Beta release due to branding/logo (sgallagh, 15:48:28)
* Server WG Test Day (sgallagh, 15:50:06)
* ACTION: junland to look into scheduling a Fedora Server Test Day
(sgallagh, 15:57:26)
Meeting ended at 16:02:18 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* junland to jump right in with TC testing
* danofsatx to file a bug against FreeIPA for the named start failure
* junland to look into scheduling a Fedora Server Test Day
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* danofsatx
* danofsatx to file a bug against FreeIPA for the named start failure
* junland
* junland to jump right in with TC testing
* junland to look into scheduling a Fedora Server Test Day
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* sgallagh (108)
* adamw (37)
* simo (35)
* junland (26)
* nirik (13)
* danofsatx (13)
* zodbot (9)
* tuanta (5)
* mitr (3)
* davidstrauss (2)
* stefw (0)
* mizmo (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
9 years, 6 months
Decision on Fedora Product branding: Fedora $PRODUCT 21 vs Fedora 21 $PRODUCT
by Stephen Gallagher
Hello folks,
I raised a question with the Board a couple weeks ago[1] as to how we
should be branding the different releases. It's been clear that
different groups have different opinions on whether we should call
something Fedora Server 21 vs. Fedora 21 Server (and Workstation and
Cloud, of course).
I was asked by the Board to get input from each of the working groups as
well as marketing and branding folks. I'm sending this to each of these
lists, but PLEASE keep all replies on the devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
list or it will be impossible to keep track of the replies. (I've set
the reply-to header on this email; please try not to lose it).
A few specific comments that have been made on the Board ticket (to
avoid rehashing them).
* "Fedora Server 21" sounds like we've had 21 releases of Fedora Server
and we certainly haven't.
* Should we start all of the Products at version 1 and say "built on the
Fedora 21 platform"?
Anyway, we need to have a consistent branding decision made for the
release (and for the Ambassadors). So please come prepared to find a
consensus (not to win a fight).
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/11
9 years, 6 months
Soliciting Agenda for 2014-10-21 meeting
by Stephen Gallagher
What do we need to discuss on Tuesday? I think at minimum we need to
make sure we're in shape for Beta release (there should be a release
candidate compose by then)
9 years, 6 months