I think we had general agreement around what we want to do here: have the Cloud Base Image become instead Fedora Server, but shipped as a cloud image and made available in cloud providers. What are the next steps to actually get there?
On 12/06/2016 04:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we had general agreement around what we want to do here: have the Cloud Base Image become instead Fedora Server, but shipped as a cloud image and made available in cloud providers. What are the next steps to actually get there?
We discussed this and I believe the path forward is to have the Cloud base image "housed" under the server WG. My understanding is that it will take on a similar form to what it has now until we more hammer our what "base runtime" is and then we'll add on top of base runtime just what we need to satisfy cloud environments.
I have been identified as a stakeholder of this image and have an action item to deliver some paragraph that indicates such to sgallagh.
Dusty
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:01:56PM -0500, Dusty Mabe wrote:
I have been identified as a stakeholder of this image and have an action item to deliver some paragraph that indicates such to sgallagh.
So I'll check this one off as Dusty's problem now? :)
On 12/06/2016 07:04 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:01:56PM -0500, Dusty Mabe wrote:
I have been identified as a stakeholder of this image and have an action item to deliver some paragraph that indicates such to sgallagh.
So I'll check this one off as Dusty's problem now? :)
:)
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 17:01 -0500, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 12/06/2016 04:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we had general agreement around what we want to do here: have the Cloud Base Image become instead Fedora Server, but shipped as a cloud image and made available in cloud providers. What are the next steps to actually get there?
We discussed this and I believe the path forward is to have the Cloud base image "housed" under the server WG. My understanding is that it will take on a similar form to what it has now until we more hammer our what "base runtime" is and then we'll add on top of base runtime just what we need to satisfy cloud environments.
I have been identified as a stakeholder of this image and have an action item to deliver some paragraph that indicates such to sgallagh.
Dusty
Contact Releng to coordinate the logistics of such a change
Dennis
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 16:38 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we had general agreement around what we want to do here: have the Cloud Base Image become instead Fedora Server, but shipped as a cloud image and made available in cloud providers. What are the next steps to actually get there?
On this topic: as of right now, the Cloud Base images are still listed as owned by the 'Cloud WG', and still as release blocking, here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/26/ReleaseBlocking
this is significant because they currently fail to compose, and so long as they're 'release blocking', this blocks the Alpha release:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1420523
so this needs sorting out - at least to the extent that we decide who's responsible for the images and if we want to stop them being release blocking - fairly soon.
On 02/08/2017 04:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 16:38 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we had general agreement around what we want to do here: have the Cloud Base Image become instead Fedora Server, but shipped as a cloud image and made available in cloud providers. What are the next steps to actually get there?
On this topic: as of right now, the Cloud Base images are still listed as owned by the 'Cloud WG', and still as release blocking, here:
I sorted through this recently with mattdm and sgallagh. The current thought is that the cloud base image will be a second class citizen and will for now be owned by a Cloud SIG comprised of me and others that care about the image.
Will send a mail to the list about this shortly.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/26/ReleaseBlocking
this is significant because they currently fail to compose, and so long as they're 'release blocking', this blocks the Alpha release:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1420523
so this needs sorting out - at least to the extent that we decide who's responsible for the images and if we want to stop them being release blocking - fairly soon.
Yes, please stop them from being release blocking.
On 02/08/2017 07:55 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 02/08/2017 04:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 16:38 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we had general agreement around what we want to do here: have the Cloud Base Image become instead Fedora Server, but shipped as a cloud image and made available in cloud providers. What are the next steps to actually get there?
On this topic: as of right now, the Cloud Base images are still listed as owned by the 'Cloud WG', and still as release blocking, here:
I sorted through this recently with mattdm and sgallagh. The current thought is that the cloud base image will be a second class citizen and will for now be owned by a Cloud SIG comprised of me and others that care about the image.
Will send a mail to the list about this shortly.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/26/ReleaseBlocking
this is significant because they currently fail to compose, and so long as they're 'release blocking', this blocks the Alpha release:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1420523
so this needs sorting out - at least to the extent that we decide who's responsible for the images and if we want to stop them being release blocking - fairly soon.
Yes, please stop them from being release blocking.
Well, we need to figure out what exactly this means, particularly since I know that Fedora QA uses this image for some of its testing, which may make it de-facto release blocking.
On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 22:30 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Yes, please stop them from being release blocking.
Well, we need to figure out what exactly this means, particularly since I know that Fedora QA uses this image for some of its testing, which may make it de-facto release blocking.
Taskotron uses it to produce the base disk images for testing; basically if a Taskotron test wants to run in a 'clean Fedora 25 environment', that environment currently gets created from the Fedora 25 Cloud base image.
AFAIK no release validation testing process relies on the Cloud base images existing, so I don't think that makes them de facto release blocking, but it'd be good to get tflink / kparal's perspective.
We do have alternative options for generating the Taskotron base images. We use a different method for creating base images for openQA (a tool called createhdds which is effectively a thin wrapper around virt-install), for instance, and there are a few other possibilities.
I believe there may be other teams using the Cloud base image for similar purposes too, but I don't have the details to hand.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:35:51AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Taskotron uses it to produce the base disk images for testing; basically if a Taskotron test wants to run in a 'clean Fedora 25 environment', that environment currently gets created from the Fedora 25 Cloud base image.
Does this use cloud-init? I can imagine a situation where this works just fine but cloud-init is totally borked, which is something we'd want to block on if Cloud is release-blocking.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:35:51AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Taskotron uses it to produce the base disk images for testing; basically if a Taskotron test wants to run in a 'clean Fedora 25 environment', that environment currently gets created from the Fedora 25 Cloud base image.
Does this use cloud-init? I can imagine a situation where this works just fine but cloud-init is totally borked, which is something we'd want to block on if Cloud is release-blocking.
Yes, we're relying on cloud-init (using testcloud) when spinning up the Taskotron workers. That's why we chose to use the Cloud Base image.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:16:28AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
Does this use cloud-init? I can imagine a situation where this works just fine but cloud-init is totally borked, which is something we'd want to block on if Cloud is release-blocking.
Yes, we're relying on cloud-init (using testcloud) when spinning up the Taskotron workers. That's why we chose to use the Cloud Base image.
Okay then. :)
On a tangetial topic, how much of cloud-init do you use? Do you use advanced cloud-config features?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:16:28AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
Does this use cloud-init? I can imagine a situation where this works just fine but cloud-init is totally borked, which is something we'd want to block on if Cloud is release-blocking.
Yes, we're relying on cloud-init (using testcloud) when spinning up the Taskotron workers. That's why we chose to use the Cloud Base image.
Okay then. :)
On a tangetial topic, how much of cloud-init do you use? Do you use advanced cloud-config features?
I think we use only to set a ssh key for the root user. Mike, you're the one most familiar with it through testcloud, is there anything else we use cloud-init for?
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:06:46 -0500 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:16:28AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
Does this use cloud-init? I can imagine a situation where this works just fine but cloud-init is totally borked, which is something we'd want to block on if Cloud is release-blocking.
Yes, we're relying on cloud-init (using testcloud) when spinning up the Taskotron workers. That's why we chose to use the Cloud Base image.
Okay then. :)
On a tangetial topic, how much of cloud-init do you use? Do you use advanced cloud-config features?
I know you were talking about taskotron, but FYI for the cloud instances in the Fedora Infra cloud we definitely use cloud-init. It sets up the networking, initial ssh keys and we also pass it data to tell it to enable the root user and not lock things down to the fedora user. :)
kevin
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:53:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I know you were talking about taskotron, but FYI for the cloud instances in the Fedora Infra cloud we definitely use cloud-init. It sets up the networking, initial ssh keys and we also pass it data to tell it to enable the root user and not lock things down to the fedora user. :)
How much of the cloud-config syntax do you use? Just the user-creation stuff?
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:00:44 -0500 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:53:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I know you were talking about taskotron, but FYI for the cloud instances in the Fedora Infra cloud we definitely use cloud-init. It sets up the networking, initial ssh keys and we also pass it data to tell it to enable the root user and not lock things down to the fedora user. :)
How much of the cloud-config syntax do you use? Just the user-creation stuff?
Yep. Just:
"#cloud-config\ndisable_root: 0"
kevin
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Dennis Gilmore -
Dusty Mabe -
Kamil Paral -
Kevin Fenzi -
Matthew Miller -
Stephen Gallagher