env-and-stacks January 2014

env-and-stacks@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
14 discussions

proposal: Env-Stacks irc channel
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 06 Feb '14

06 Feb '14

Hi, This is a follow up mail to the discussion we started in the meeting on Tuesday, for the benefit of those who couldn't attend the meeting where the idea was proposed, about whether we should have an Env and Stacks irc channel on Freenode for informal discussion and interactions. A few thoughts on it so far: Pros - should allow more real-time interactions between all interested parties - would make it easy to see and catch up on conversions - would be quiet enough to chat even with longer response lags Cons - one more channel: #fedora-devel is enough.. - hard to find a good short name (my client config seems unable to restore channel names longer than ~15 chars;) - could distract from email communication - channel could be very quiet... - timezones Personally I think it is worth having a channel. I am usually connected to freenode and having a channel specific to Env and Stacks would make it easy to see conversations as they happen or afterwards. For the name I might suggest #fedora-env or #fedora-stacks to keep it short. Jens ps It might be good to post topics/proposals like this for discussion to the mailing-list ahead of the meeting so they can be added to the agenda, though I guess it is also fine to bring them up at the end: using trac for tracking meeting topics/proposals might also be good, and could make it easier for non-members to make suggestions/proposals for discussion. This time I just remembered the idea spontaneously during the meeting discussion.

7 6

vision of our group once again
by Marcela Mašláňová 06 Feb '14

06 Feb '14

Hi guys, yesterday were discussed the vision again. Please look into meeting minutes and let's try to discuss better wording of vision here on mailing list. One of proposal was something like: "Fedora is the preferred ecosystem of choice for new software development to occur in any language and on any framework." Otherwise Slavek was asked to rewrote devassistant part. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Product_Requirements_Document Thanks, Marcela

3 2

Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-01-28)
by Marcela Mašláňová 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. == Topic == PRD was approved by FESCo. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Product_Requirements_Document But need to add comments from the ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1224 And comments from FESCo meeting: * There's some disconnect between vision/mission and what the rest is actually focusing on ... but each individual item is OK, so +1 And from mailing list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/194215.html jdulaney aka handsome_pirate was missing last few months and didn't vote about PRD. Let's discuss who can take over his voting responsibility instead of him. I suggest Debi (as program manager, good for scheduling all our tasks) or Stano (only representative of Java community in WG).

2 3

Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-01-21)
by Marcela Mašláňová 21 Jan '14

21 Jan '14

WG meeting will be at 13:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. == Topic == PRD was approved on mailing list. Possible further discussion about tasks: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Product_Requirements_Document I can't attend tomorrow, could someone chair the meeting? How to do it is mentioned on wiki page of Env and Stacks WG: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/ Marcela

3 2

vote on PRD
by Marcela Mašláňová 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

Guys, I'd like to ask you to vote about current PRD. The deadline is on Monday. Do you want to vote on it tomorrow (Friday)? I know there are still new comments, but for example if we were trying to figure out what to do with scl, it can take few months. Marcela

8 22

Working on the SCL section in the PRD
by Toshio Kuratomi 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

At today's meeting there was some concern that the SCL section might not reflect what we wanted to do with SCLs. I proposed a partial strategy for how we could work on SCLs but the people we felt were the most important to get agreement on the strategy weren't present at that point. So sending to the list for feedback: == Background == There will be SCLs in the main Fedora Repository. Those will be produced by Fedora packagers following the Fedora Guidelines. These SCLs will also be buildable for EPEL since they will exist just like any other set of Fedora packages. That will make those SCLs available in both the Fedora and the RHEL ecosystems. However, since SCLs are really defining a platform that sits on top of an OS, we'll likely also want to give users of Fedora access to SCLs that are not produced by Fedora and do not follow the Fedora Guidelines. At the moment, the most prominent of those are the SCLs for RHEL. In the future there might be a flourishing softwarecollections.org collection of scls as well. We want to give people access to install these other platforms on Fedora. == Strategy == The proposed strategy is for the SCLs produced by Fedora in the main Fedora Repositories to basically stay with the FPC. The SCLs in this other category are what this working group should work on enabling. <possible implementation note> At the meeting, it was mentioned that the softwarecollections.org repositories might operate under legal requirements similar to the Fedora copr repositories would also be RH's responsiblity. If this is the case, we may be able to code software that asks user's to confirm they want to use softwarecollections.org repositories and then enables those repositories for them. If this is the case, then our implementation may simply be writing the software that prompts the user to enable the repositories. mmaslano, do you have any information on this legal aspect? We would probably need to have something in public that we could point FESCo/Fedora Legal at if we want to do things this way. </implementation> == sclutils == What our involvement in sclutils v2 should be was also brought up in the meeting. There were some general sentiments that were agreed upon but no concrete plans stemming from that: * scls are implemented via rpm macros which in the past has been 100% controlled by the distributions. This leads us to the point that Fedora as a distribution needs to be involved with defining these macros. * Not sure precisely which group should be doing this -- perhaps it should be FPC since this is what they've dealt with in the past or perhaps it should be us since we're dealing with new packaging technoilogies. * The point was brought up that whoever it is, they need to be committed to working on this issue. If they're not, then it will be a quagmire. So it could even be a new group of people if that's what it takes * However, the purpose of this needs to be to get all of the stakeholders talking to one another. Right now we have a great many stakeholders but their needs aren't being adequately communicated to each other. Another group that coordinates would be good. Another group that simply becomes another stakeholder would be bad. mmaslano: Something I've been lacking in FPC... Could you send a list of the stakeholders you know about and what they're doing? Who are the active people on upstream softwarecollections.org? Who are the people doing work on sclutils itself? Who are the people working on the scls for RHEL? How much do those groups have separate interests and how much are they a single team? -Toshio

4 8

Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-01-14)
by Marcela Mašláňová 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. == Topic == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD#Tasks Those who can't attend the meeting should comment the draft on mailing list. The deadline for document is next Monday (20th January).

3 4

[RFC] Vision and Mission Statement
by Tadej Janež 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Hi! I think our PRD would benefit a lot from having a clear Vision and Mission Statement at the beginning. For an example of both, see the Server's PRD: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document_Draft Below is my initial draft of both. Vision Statement: Fedora Environment and Stacks Working Group is a research and development group working on new ways to provide the latest software stacks in Fedora. It also works on transforming Fedora into the preferred environment of software developers. Mission Statement: Fedora Environment and Stacks Working Group is a group incubating new ideas for packaging, testing and delivering the various existing and new software stacks in Fedora. The successful ideas will graduate and become an officially released and supported part of the Fedora Project. Comments? What should we put in the Mission Statement for the "environment" part? Tadej

3 2

Polishing the PRD
by Tadej Janež 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

Hi! There are some parts of the PRD that feel to terse and unclear to me. They are: 1) (under Testing/additional repositories) * A repo with packages only for the build. It might help some developers to just build their package without maintaining the build dependencies. 2) Build systems * COPR & koji ** COPR able to build an SCL ** koji - a number of improvements for developers (buildlogs, etc.), in co-operation with the koji upstream. 3) SCL * SCL in Fedora. ** Pending in FPC. Most probably each SCL will be added into Fedora as a system-wide change. * SCL in SCL.org from COPR. ** Possible to use 3rd party repos for various projects. ** Almost ready. * scl-utils v2 ** New features out of scope for this version of the PRD. 4) CI * Out of scope (going to take a long time to be included in Fedora, maybe even the inclusion for this group). ** AutoQA - co-operation with Fedora QA. ** Jenkins - upstream projects for Fedora should use http://jenkins.cloud.fedoraproject.org/ I would expand them myself, but I'm not knowledgeable enough. So, I would kindly ask those who put them in or those with enough expertise to expand them. Also, I would turn the sections of the PRD around so that "About this Document" section would come at the end. That way the PRD's content will have more spotlight (it would be similar to the Cloud's PRD). Thoughts? Regards, Tadej

4 10

new deadline for PRD
by Marcela Mašláňová 09 Jan '14

09 Jan '14

Yesterday, FESCo agreed on new deadline for PRD - 20th January. Let's finish our PRD before our next meeting (14th). Marcela

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

env-and-stacks January 2014