Hi everyone. Joe and I did a lot of work on the cloud changelist, starting from the brainstorming list that Sandro put into place. Please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist.
The next steps are:
1. Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be nice to fill that in, although we can leave some of them TBD if need be.
2. Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here if it looks like something is missing.
3. There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we have it about right.
4. Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling fixes and the like. If it seems big, mention it here, or otherwise just do it.
5. I propose that we accept this list by lazy consensus -- that is, if we don't get any -1s from WG members by 23:00 UTC on Monday, we'll consider it accepted. I don't think there is anything controversial in here.
Thanks everyone!
I can sign myself up for either item:
Automatic Smoketests on Image Build
Or
Automatic upload
Let's do it!!!! On Feb 28, 2014 2:51 PM, "Matthew Miller" mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi everyone. Joe and I did a lot of work on the cloud changelist, starting from the brainstorming list that Sandro put into place. Please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist.
The next steps are:
Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be nice to fill that in, although we can leave some of them TBD if need be.
Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here if it looks like something is missing.
There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we have it about right.
Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling fixes and the like. If it seems big, mention it here, or otherwise just do it.
I propose that we accept this list by lazy consensus -- that is, if we don't get any -1s from WG members by 23:00 UTC on Monday, we'll consider it accepted. I don't think there is anything controversial in here.
Thanks everyone!
-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:11:17PM -0500, Tim Ski wrote:
I can sign myself up for either item: Automatic Smoketests on Image Build Or Automatic upload
Awesome. Feel free to edit your name into the wiki.
Let's do it!!!!
Yes!
On 02/28/2014 01:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
- I propose that we accept this list by lazy consensus -- that is, if we don't get any -1s from WG members by 23:00 UTC on Monday, we'll consider it accepted. I don't think there is anything controversial in here.
+1 to lazy consensus.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi everyone. Joe and I did a lot of work on the cloud changelist, starting from the brainstorming list that Sandro put into place. Please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist.
The next steps are:
- Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be nice to fill that in, although we can leave some of them TBD if need be.
So, what does being an owner constitute? Pulling strings or doing all the hard work? I'd be interested in doing one or two, but e.g. the Docker host image still needs SELinux changes, AFAIK and while I could write some policy that would work I'm sure someone else could write one that would work and was as secure as possible... ;)
- Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here if it looks like something is missing.
Looks good to me but with such a big thing as Fedora.next, it's hard to tell whether something was missed until we notice it the hard way. Maybe, since the F21 cycle is longer anyway, we should request that the involved WGs are allowed to propose changes after the normal change deadline if it must.
- There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we have it about right.
Wondering a bit about one tailored image (Docker) being set to 'moderate' and all the others to 'nice-to-have' but figure that's because we don't like losing even more to CoreOS than we already have (not sure whether having a Docker Host image is enough for that, though...the guys at CoreOS are seriously doing great work). Otherwise, looks fair enough.
- Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling fixes and the like. If it seems big, mention it here, or otherwise just do it.
Nothing to complain this time ;) Except some changes don't have the "Cloud SIG owner. ???????" line which is easily added - or is that by intent?
- I propose that we accept this list by lazy consensus -- that is, if we don't get any -1s from WG members by 23:00 UTC on Monday, we'll consider it accepted. I don't think there is anything controversial in here.
+1 to both the list and the lazy consensus.
-- Sandro
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:05:19AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
- Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be
So, what does being an owner constitute? Pulling strings or doing all the hard work? I'd be interested in doing one or two, but e.g. the Docker host image still needs SELinux changes, AFAIK and while I could write some policy that would work I'm sure someone else could write one that would work and was as secure as possible... ;)
Good question. :) It means being responsible for making sure that thing happens in whatever way necessary. The ideal, easy case is where one cloud SIG member can in fact do most of the work. (Or two or three members.) But a lot of these are going to be about coordinating, bribing, and cajoling other people into doing the heavy listing -- or figuring out alternatives when that isn't working. For the things which impact overloaded groups like release engineering and QA, that might include stirring up more volunteers (from this SIG or from the broader world).
- Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here if it looks like something is missing.
Looks good to me but with such a big thing as Fedora.next, it's hard to tell whether something was missed until we notice it the hard way. Maybe, since the F21 cycle is longer anyway, we should request that the involved WGs are allowed to propose changes after the normal change deadline if it must.
We discussed this in the FESCo meeting. Anyone _can_ propose changes after the deadline -- it just becomes naturally harder and harder to to actually accept them.
- There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we have it about right.
Wondering a bit about one tailored image (Docker) being set to 'moderate' and all the others to 'nice-to-have' but figure that's because we don't like losing even more to CoreOS than we already have
Yes, that. :)
(not sure whether having a Docker Host image is enough for that, though...the guys at CoreOS are seriously doing great work).
Emphatically yes. We need to get the host image into awesome shape so we can start building the needed next level too.
- Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling
Nothing to complain this time ;) Except some changes don't have the "Cloud SIG owner. ???????" line which is easily added - or is that by intent?
Originally, I had only put the owner line in the "external needs" blocks, with the idea being that we weren't just throwing demands over the wall and hoping someone else would make them happen. But it really wouldn't hurt to have them for everything, even if there are still a lot of TBDs.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:05:19AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
- Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be
So, what does being an owner constitute? Pulling strings or doing all the hard work? I'd be interested in doing one or two, but e.g. the Docker host image still needs SELinux changes, AFAIK and while I could write some policy that would work I'm sure someone else could write one that would work and was as secure as possible... ;)
Good question. :) It means being responsible for making sure that thing happens in whatever way necessary. The ideal, easy case is where one cloud SIG member can in fact do most of the work. (Or two or three members.) But a lot of these are going to be about coordinating, bribing, and cajoling other people into doing the heavy listing -- or figuring out alternatives when that isn't working. For the things which impact overloaded groups like release engineering and QA, that might include stirring up more volunteers (from this SIG or from the broader world).
That's a long way of saying "it depends", but I appreciate the details ;) Figure changes are supposed to be mostly implemented by the SIG while external needs are mostly implemented by the external resource and the owners' primary job is to work as a point of contact and keeping track, etc.?
Also, regarding the change "Move to ImageFactory For image Creation", do we mean "putting ImageFactory into Koji" or "changing the cloud base kickstart file to being ImageFactory-compatible" or something completely different? It's not really clear from the description (unless you know the tools / processes / current progress of both tasks better, I guess).
So, what's the process of claiming ownership? Just edit the wiki and get started? Or is there some kind of approval process? Or a "go" signal to wait for?
-- Sandro
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 05:23:01PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
That's a long way of saying "it depends", but I appreciate the details ;) Figure changes are supposed to be mostly implemented by the SIG while external needs are mostly implemented by the external resource and the owners' primary job is to work as a point of contact and keeping track, etc.?
Yeah, basically. And figuring out what to do when the external resource comes back and says "we're going to need a lot of help with that". :)
Also, regarding the change "Move to ImageFactory For image Creation", do we mean "putting ImageFactory into Koji" or "changing the cloud base kickstart file to being ImageFactory-compatible" or something completely different? It's not really clear from the description (unless you know the tools / processes / current progress of both tasks better, I guess).
Sorry, yeah -- it means putting ImageFactory into Koji. This is work in progress and should land in an upstream koji release real soon now.
So, what's the process of claiming ownership? Just edit the wiki and get started? Or is there some kind of approval process? Or a "go" signal to wait for?
Post (a new thread) here and edit the wiki. Possibly also post on the devel list if it's one of the ones with broad interest. I don't think any of these need a go signal -- the only reason I can see them being rejected is lack of time / resources, and if someone is actually already making it happen then that won't be a problem.
cloud@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Joe Brockmeier -
Matthew Miller -
Sandro "red" Mathys -
Tim Ski