[CentOS-virt] Actions and IRC log from May 6th VIRT SIG meeting
Hi all, I summarized actions on http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status tagged with 06/05 The meeting LOG is below Regards Lars lars_kurth How do you want to run this? We have a set of lose ends: the roadmap via http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-April/003763.html http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-April/003763.html kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickif someone (lars?) wants to just do it point by point we can run through those. lars_kurth And some open actions: http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickthere is a 60 min hard stop at the end jonludlam ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnickhi all lars_kurth How about the following: Actions first, then George can do the roadmap? kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickok, works for me lars_kurth Do we all have http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status up? kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnicki do gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickyep pasik ircs://freenode/pasik,isnickyep lars_kurth kbsingh: there were 3 technical items on you. I know you and hughesjr and gwd had a conversation kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnicki believe gwd is setup with the basic workflow, and has git access lars_kurth last week. Is there anything that can be ticked off in the technical category? kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickwe only imported the main xen repo at this point, but if things are looking ok and if the process is something we can work with - i cna go ahead and import the rest of the repos gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickSo it's imported into git.centos.org? kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickhumm lars_kurth kbsingh: what would the URL be? kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick https://git.centos.org/project/sig-virt https://git.centos.org/project/sig-virt kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickis where it should come up on lars_kurth definitely there kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickright, so the blocker was how are we going to organise the git repos on github - are we going to setup some teams at the project level or the repos level kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-April/010175.html http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-April/010175.html is the conversation kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnicki dont believe we all got to a result there. lars_kurth Do we need to reply to this thread? lars_kurth Or is this more general? gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickWell you had asked about having a different org for each sig, and Karsten said that sounded reasonable. gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickIs there any reason not to give that a try for now? lars_kurth Can we close this now. Or do we just have an action to engage with the discussion? gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickI can reply to the thread. kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickthere are a couple of threads that fall out from this kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickeg. where is the kernel going to be maintained - and is every sig that needs a kernel then going to need to maintain the entire thing kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickor can we just have a single git repo, with sig's maintaining their own branches hughesjr ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick I see a meeting in progress ...cool lars_kurth hughesjr: hi. A little painful on IRC, but welcome lars_kurth kbsingh: does sounds like a centos-wide decision that needs to be made. I propose to take an action for gwd and me to replay to the respective threads. gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickIs there really a difference? Isn't that the point of DVCS? kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickgwd: for the sake of convenience, I'd say maybe we just trial the model of having everything under /CentOS/ and if or when we run into a problem, we can try to change things around gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickThat's certainly a lot easier to begin with. kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickok lars_kurth ok.Cool: I made a note kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnicklets take that away then as a todo gwd ircs://freenode/gwd,isnickkbsingh: So you're going to clone all the repos into git.centos.org and github.com/CentOS/ ? kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickI've replied to the thread as well lars_kurth Added as new action. Gwd may need to tidy up if I misunderstood kbsingh ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnickgwd: yeah, I can go ahead and do that as well - not online right now, but it can be done today lars_kurth IS:
Re: [CentOS-virt] Actions and IRC log from May 6th VIRT SIG meeting
On 06/05/2014 15:31, Lars Kurth wrote: Hi all, I summarized actions on http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status tagged with 06/05 The meeting LOG is below Regards Lars Didn't realize the log would turn out that bad. Here we go again ... lars_kurth: How do you want to run this? We have a set of loose ends: the roadmap via http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-April/003763.html kbsingh: if someone (lars_kurth) wants to just do it point by point we can run through those. lars_kurth: And some open actions: http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status kbsingh: there is a 60 min hard stop at the end jonludlam: hi all lars_kurth: How about the following: Actions first, then George can do the roadmap? kbsingh: ok, works for me lars_kurth: Do we all have http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status up? kbsingh: I do gwd:yep pasik:yep lars_kurth:kbsingh: there were 3 technical items on you. I know you and hughesjr and gwd had a conversation last week. Is there anything that can be ticked off in the technical category? kbsingh:I believe gwd is setup with the basic workflow, and has git access we only imported the main xen repo at this point, but if things are looking ok and if the process is something we can work with - i can go ahead and import the rest of the repos gwd:So it's imported into git.centos.org? kbsingh:humm lars_kurth: kbsingh: what would the URL be? kbsingh:https://git.centos.org/project/sig-virt is where it should come up on lars_kurth: definitely there kbsingh:right, so the blocker was how are we going to organise the git repos on github - are we going to setup some teams at the project level or the repos level kbsingh:http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-April/010175.html is the conversation kbsingh:i dont believe we all got to a result there. lars_kurth: Do we need to reply to this thread? Or is this more general? gwd:Well you had asked about having a different org for each sig, and Karsten said that sounded reasonable. Is there any reason not to give that a try for now? lars_kurth: Can we close this now. Or do we just have an action to engage with the discussion? gwd:I can reply to the thread. kbsingh: There are a couple of threads that fall out from this, eg. where is the kernel going to be maintained - and is every sig that needs a kernel then going to need to maintain the entire thing or can we just have a single git repo, with sig's maintaining their own branches hughesjr:I see a meeting in progress ...cool lars_kurth: hughesjr: hi. A little painful on IRC, but welcome lars_kurth: kbsingh: does sounds like a centos-wide decision that needs to be made. I propose to take an action for gwd and me to replay to the respective threads. gwd:Is there really a difference? Isn't that the point of DVCS? kbsingh:gwd: for the sake of convenience, I'd say maybe we just trial the model of having everything under /CentOS/ and if or when we run into a problem, we can try to change things around gwd:That's certainly a lot easier to begin with. kbsingh:ok lars_kurth: Cool: I made a note kbsingh:lets take that away then as a todo lars_kurth: Added as new action. Gwd may need to tidy up if I misunderstood gwd:kbsingh: So you're going to clone all the repos into git.centos.org and github.com/CentOS/ ? kbsingh:I've replied to the thread as well kbsingh:gwd: yeah, I can go ahead and do that as well - not online right now, but it can be done today lars_kurth: Is “KaranbirSingh to put together list of repository names in Xen4CentOS such that we can use it as a baseline” - still open? kbsingh:yes. that should get resolved with the move lars_kurth: Alright. Move to Community? lars_kurth: My list policy item is still open gwd:What was the list policy question? I forget. lars_kurth: gwd: just send a reminder to people that posting to the list while not subscribed = mail discarded Do we want to keep this, or change it? gwd:discard got it. lars_kurth: And we were discussing whether kbsingh wanted to attend the Hackathon. I will need to know pretty soon, as we are running out of space kbsingh:I do want to come to the Hackathon. i believe there is some libvirt people as well ? lars_kurth: Yes. Daniel Berrage. As well as some other Xen folks working on libvirt OK. In that case, I will reserve a space and add you to the wiki gwd:jonludlam: Do you know who from the XenServer team is coming? jonludlam: dave scott, me, not sure about others jonludlam:euanh, do you know? euanh:I'm hoping to come lars_kurth: Let me check – see http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Hackathon/May2014#Confirmed_attendees gwdjonludlam: For this meeting, knowing that you dave are coming is sufficient I think. jonludlam: David Vrabel and Andrew Cooper on that list gwd:lars_kurth: You have an outstanding item to e-mail the -virt mailing list. Are you planning on doing that? Does it make sense to do so if there are only a handful
