Re: REMINDER: Submission deadline for System Wide Changes of Fedora 25 in three weeks

2016-06-15 Thread Jan Kurik 
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> Do we have any system-wide changes we need to propose for F25?
>
> Also, seems weird to have this deadline looming before we even release
> F24... :-)

It is strange for me as well :-)
The first reason is that F25 has been planned with a wish to have GA
at the first half of November 2016 and the second reason is that F24
has slipped for more than a month from the origin baseline.

So, if you have any Changes, please propose :-)

Thanks and Regards,
Jan

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Jan Kurik 
> Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:31 AM
> Subject: REMINDER: Submission deadline for System Wide Changes of Fedora 25
> in three weeks
> To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org, Development discussions related
> to Fedora 
>
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> The submission deadline for System Wide Changes of Fedora 25 [1] is
> coming pretty soon - in three weeks on July 5th. Alpha release of
> Fedora 25 is planned on August 23rd.
>
> Please, submit your System Wide Changes by this deadline, earlier
> better. As the deadline applies for System Wide Changes it is always
> good to have most of Self Contained Changes proposed as well. In case
> you'll need any help with your Change proposals, feel free to contact
> me.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jan
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/25/Schedule
>
> --
> Jan Kuřík
> Platform & Fedora Program Manager
> Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
> --
> devel mailing list
> de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
> j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ___
> cloud mailing list
> cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Bill Nottingham 
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: 
> 3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it
>really is actually important. Possibilities include:
> 
>- Fedora Container Cluster Edition
>- Fedora OpenShift Edition
>- Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition
>- Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition
> 
>and all have their plusses and minuses. 

As someone who mainly just reads mailing lists and announcements to try and
keep straight in his head what's going on, I would suggest *not* just having 
yet another "X Atomic Y" name.

Bill
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No Fedora 24 container?

2016-06-15 Thread Kushal Das 
On 14/06/16, Josh Berkus wrote:
> https://hub.docker.com/_/fedora/
>
> This seems like a big loss, especially for getting folks to test Fedora 24.
> 
We push there only after GA. You can see the latest nightly build at
[1].

[1]
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-/compose/Docker/x86_64/images/

Kushal
-- 
Fedora Cloud Engineer
CPython Core Developer
https://kushaldas.in
https://dgplug.org
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:04:08PM -0400, Matt Micene wrote:
> I can also see the potential argument that Atomic Host on it's own wasn't
> compelling enough for a full Edition.  So, I hope if we do move toward an
> Atomic+Origin as primary deliverable, we don't lose focus on Atomic Host
> Clusters, since one can make the argument that while related there's two
> separate use cases.

Can you spell out those two use cases? I'd find that really helpful. Do
you think one could be served by a subset of the other, or is it really
two separate deliverables?

> my knee-jerk $0.02

Very welcome — thanks. 

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:09:51PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora
> > Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate
> > to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or
> > the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech).
> Have we formally redefined it as such?  I feel like either I've been
> asleep and missed a lot (I don't think so?), people are having
> discussions around these things in places that are harder to follow,
> or people are making assumptions.

I'm not sure about formality, but it's effectively so due to the new
website design, which has

  https://spins.fedoraproject.org/ "Alternative desktops for Fedora"

and

  https://labs.fedoraproject.org/ "Functional bundles for Fedora"
  

> Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a
> foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well.  Which
> is where some of my surprise comes from I guess.  I thought we'd
> finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a
> fundamentals level.  That's still possible I guess.

Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily in confict. It basically ends up
being two separate Editions built on Atomic technology.


> > Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on
> > whatever we promote as an installer/configurator.
> I don't see a need for a new logo.  It's throwing out the well done
> and now somewhat familiar branding work we've built up.  However,
> people like new pretty things so whatever.

Fortunately the https://getfedora.org/static/images/cloud-logo.png logo
*does* work well for "container cluster" as well. It was designed with
the idea of scale-out computing.


> > Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la
> > current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something
> > else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host
> > continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different
> > cluster roles; I dunno.
> I kind of think you want to stop calling them releases to be honest.
> They aren't releases in the grand Fedora sense of the word.  They're
> bundled and focused updates (service packs?) of content within the
> grand Fedora release cycle.

Sure, I'm open to another term.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Matt Micene 
>
> We've decided that, like Workstation, we want to focus on deliverable,
> complete OS environments for users instead of "parts".  For Container
> Cloud, that looks a lot like Fedora+OpenShiftOrigin, rather than just
> Atomic Host.
>

I feel like I've not been out of the loop (aside from the recent FAD) but
this comes as a bit of a surprise to me.

To be clear I don't see this as an "instead", but more of "in addition".
>
> I think OpenShift is a *lot* more pretty face to be presenting by default
> than
> just raw Kubernetes, and in addition we need to drive the integration
> story between S2I and Fedora/RPM packaging.


This is a lot less scary, since I don't think moving the whole SIG to focus
on a Fedora based delivery of Origin is all that interesting.  I definitely
agree that Origin is prettier than the current state, but that we should be
looking to improve that state.  It seems like "PaaS is the answer" comes
from the existence of a PaaS, not from what users might want from an Atomic
Host Cluster.  S2I is great, but not the only way to build containers, and
definitely drives the Fedora container story in an opinionated direction
that also impacts people running Atomic Host Clusters (must have a registry
and K8S implementation that understands the ImageStream extension) away
from "general" use cases for K8S and Docker.

I love Origin, but I just don't see it as the "right" answer for "I need a
better way to manage a Docker/Rocket/Kubernetes cluster".  I absolutely
think that Atomic Host as the execution environment for Origin is The Right
Thing (TM) and we should be working together there.  I think there's
missing cluster management in both projects right now, but Cockpit and
Commissaire are making big strides in that arena.

I can also see the potential argument that Atomic Host on it's own wasn't
compelling enough for a full Edition.  So, I hope if we do move toward an
Atomic+Origin as primary deliverable, we don't lose focus on Atomic Host
Clusters, since one can make the argument that while related there's two
separate use cases.

my knee-jerk $0.02
- Matt M


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Colin Walters  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 02:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > To me it is.  As I said originally, something that might be
> > self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the
> > IRC meetings, etc.  It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing
> > X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y
> > instead."  Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y
> > were bad or negative.  Just surprising.
>
> To be clear I don't see this as an "instead", but more of "in addition".
>
> I think OpenShift is a *lot* more pretty face to be presenting by default
> than
> just raw Kubernetes, and in addition we need to drive the integration
> story between S2I and Fedora/RPM packaging.
>
> Currently a major disconnect with Atomic Host is that Kubernetes
> is included, whereas many many people want to control the
> version, or use OpenShift.
>
> So we're looking at addressing this by dropping Kube out of the host
> by default, and supporting installation via system containers (`atomic
> install --system`)
> or package layering.
>
> > Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a
> > foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well.  Which
> > is where some of my surprise comes from I guess.  I thought we'd
> > finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a
> > fundamentals level.  That's still possible I guess.
>
> Given the above then, WorkstationOstree is still entirely possible
> and makes sense.  I'm in fact running builds of it right now =)
>
> The only crosscutting thing here was - does it make sense to
> ship the Workstation as Docker images instead, and use Atomic Host?
> I don't think that's quite technically feasible yet, though with the
> system containers work we're potentially closer.  That's a big
> discussion.
>
> ___
> cloud mailing list
> cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fwd: REMINDER: Submission deadline for System Wide Changes of Fedora 25 in three weeks

2016-06-15 Thread Joe Brockmeier 
Do we have any system-wide changes we need to propose for F25?

Also, seems weird to have this deadline looming before we even release
F24... :-)

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jan Kurik 
Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:31 AM
Subject: REMINDER: Submission deadline for System Wide Changes of Fedora 25
in three weeks
To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org, Development discussions related
to Fedora 


Hi everyone!

The submission deadline for System Wide Changes of Fedora 25 [1] is
coming pretty soon - in three weeks on July 5th. Alpha release of
Fedora 25 is planned on August 23rd.

Please, submit your System Wide Changes by this deadline, earlier
better. As the deadline applies for System Wide Changes it is always
good to have most of Self Contained Changes proposed as well. In case
you'll need any help with your Change proposals, feel free to contact
me.

Best Regards,
Jan

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/25/Schedule

--
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
--
devel mailing list
de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org





-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

[cloud] #162: Milestones, components need updating

2016-06-15 Thread Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets 
#162: Milestones, components need updating
-+
 Reporter:  jberkus  |  Owner:
 Type:  task | Status:  new
 Priority:  normal   |  Milestone:  Future
Component:  ---  |   Keywords:
-+
 The components and milestones in this Trac are WAY out of date.  The
 latest milestone is Fedora 22, and Atomic Host isn't listed as a
 component.

 How do we update them?

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Cloud Meeting Minutes 2016-06-15

2016-06-15 Thread Sayan Chowdhury 
HTML Version:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-06-15/fedora_cloud_wg.2016-06-15-17.03.html
Full Log:
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-06-15/fedora_cloud_wg.2016-06-15-17.03.log.html

==
#fedora-meeting-1: fedora_cloud_wg
==

Meeting started by sayan at 17:03:39 UTC. The full logs are
available at 
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-06-15/fedora_cloud_wg.2016-06-15-17.03.log.html

Meeting summary
--

* Roll Call (sayan, 17:04:03)
* Action items from last meeting (sayan, 17:10:34)
* scollier to create ticket for migrating docker hub to org (sayan, 17:11:33)
* jzb to follow up on getting fedora cloud images onto Azure and other
providers (sayan, 17:12:30)
* Fedora Cloud FAD (late 2015/early 2016)
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/115 (sayan, 17:16:29)
   * ACTION: sayan to close the ticket 115 (sayan, 17:19:53)


* Fedora-Dockerfiles examples for Kubernetes
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/125 (sayan, 17:20:45)

* vagrant boxes fixups https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/136
(sayan, 17:23:21)

* Don't overwrite download location for 2 week atomic images
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/147 (sayan, 17:24:48)

* Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/148 (sayan, 17:31:02)

* Need owner to define basic container smoke testing requirements
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/151 (sayan, 17:35:42)

* Fedora Coud Test Day for F24
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/152 (sayan, 17:36:59)

* design, deploy and document Fedora OpenShift Playground (FOSP)
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/153 (sayan, 17:47:08)

* make Fedora Atomic download page clearer
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/154 (sayan, 17:55:55)

* Decide on post-GA update cadence for various deliverables
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/155 (sayan, 17:58:32)

  * https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/FedoraCloud-WG-FAD-2016
(dustymabe, 18:02:15)

* Need complete Kickstart docs for Atomic Host
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/15 (sayan, 18:06:49)

* Open Floor (sayan, 18:07:51)
 * ACTION: jzb to follow up on getting fedora cloud images onto Azure
and other providers (dustymabe, 18:14:25)
 * ACTION: jzb take another run at legal on azure cloud issue
(dustymabe, 18:14:34)

Meeting ended at 18:15:01 UTC.

Action items
--

* sayan to close the ticket 115
* jzb to follow up on getting fedora cloud images onto Azure and other providers
* jzb take another run at legal on azure cloud issue



Action items, by person
--

* jzb
  * jzb to follow up on getting fedora cloud images onto Azure and
other providers
  * jzb take another run at legal on azure cloud issue

* sayan
   * sayan to close the ticket 115



People present (lines said)
---

* dustymabe (96)
* sayan (64)
* jzb (26)
* maxamillion (22)
* zodbot (21)
* rtnpro (12)
* jberkus (10)
* scollier (9)
* tflink (8)
* coremodule (7)
* sjennings (4)
* bowlofeggs (3)
* gholms (1)



-- 
Sayan Chowdhury 
Engineer, Fedora Engineering - Emerging Platform
GPG Fingerprint : 0F16 E841 E517 225C 7D13  AB3C B023 9931 9CD0 5C8B


Proud to work at The Open Organization!
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Colin Walters 
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 02:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> To me it is.  As I said originally, something that might be
> self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the
> IRC meetings, etc.  It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing
> X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y
> instead."  Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y
> were bad or negative.  Just surprising.

To be clear I don't see this as an "instead", but more of "in addition".

I think OpenShift is a *lot* more pretty face to be presenting by default than
just raw Kubernetes, and in addition we need to drive the integration
story between S2I and Fedora/RPM packaging.

Currently a major disconnect with Atomic Host is that Kubernetes
is included, whereas many many people want to control the
version, or use OpenShift.

So we're looking at addressing this by dropping Kube out of the host
by default, and supporting installation via system containers (`atomic install 
--system`)
or package layering. 

> Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a
> foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well.  Which
> is where some of my surprise comes from I guess.  I thought we'd
> finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a
> fundamentals level.  That's still possible I guess.

Given the above then, WorkstationOstree is still entirely possible
and makes sense.  I'm in fact running builds of it right now =)

The only crosscutting thing here was - does it make sense to
ship the Workstation as Docker images instead, and use Atomic Host?
I don't think that's quite technically feasible yet, though with the
system containers work we're potentially closer.  That's a big
discussion.

___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Josh Berkus 
On 06/15/2016 11:09 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Miller
>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:17:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and
 teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go
 even further — not just a single container host, but a full container
 cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting
 _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_.
>>> Surprising.
>>
>> Is it? That indicates something of a disconnect, I guess. It looked to
>> me like things were going this way for a while, and the thing I'm
>> surprised about is the unanimity of interest in doing it sooner rather
>> than later.
> 
> To me it is.  As I said originally, something that might be
> self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the
> IRC meetings, etc.  It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing
> X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y
> instead."  Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y
> were bad or negative.  Just surprising.
> 
> The only thing that doesn't surprise me is that the original plan was
> deemed not enough, because that's just how cloud is.

Summary:

We've decided that, like Workstation, we want to focus on deliverable,
complete OS environments for users instead of "parts".  For Container
Cloud, that looks a lot like Fedora+OpenShiftOrigin, rather than just
Atomic Host.  The idea being that we want to present something which
users can use to deploy containerized Fedora applications immediately,
rather than something they can build a container cloud out of.

So the idea will to be to create a "run it out of the box" experience.

> 
 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change
Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp,
but we should definitely get that stamp.)
>>> When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to
>>> Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings,
>>> and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even
>>> Atomic Host)?  While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG
>>> members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will
>>> not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem.
>>
>> Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora
>> Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate
>> to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or
>> the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech).
> 
> Have we formally redefined it as such?  I feel like either I've been
> asleep and missed a lot (I don't think so?), people are having
> discussions around these things in places that are harder to follow,
> or people are making assumptions.
> 
>> It might be a good idea to have a new mailing list for the new edition
>> WG, and keep this one focused on Cloud SIG stuff across all Editions.
>>
>> As for Atomic... Atomic Host is a building block for the new thing, and
>> I think we'd continue to make that block available on its own to those
>> who want that, but not necessarily promote it.
> 
> Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a
> foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well.  Which
> is where some of my surprise comes from I guess.  I thought we'd
> finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a
> fundamentals level.  That's still possible I guess.

Yeah, so Atomic Host will still remain available as an "alternate
download".  Among other things, it has users.  But you'll need to click
on a "more downloads" button to find it.

 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required
technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on
those.
>>> I'm curious to see what those might be.
>>
>> Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on
>> whatever we promote as an installer/configurator.
> 
> I don't see a need for a new logo.  It's throwing out the well done
> and now somewhat familiar branding work we've built up.  However,
> people like new pretty things so whatever.
> 
>> Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la
>> current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something
>> else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host
>> continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different
>> cluster roles; I dunno.
> 
> I kind of think you want to stop calling them releases to be honest.
> They aren't releases in the grand Fedora sense of the word.  They're
> bundled and focused updates (service packs?) of content within the
> grand Fedora release cycle.
> 
> I don't believe you'll get to actual true separate releases for
> Editions until modularity enables such a

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Josh Boyer 
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:17:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and
>> > teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go
>> > even further — not just a single container host, but a full container
>> > cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting
>> > _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_.
>> Surprising.
>
> Is it? That indicates something of a disconnect, I guess. It looked to
> me like things were going this way for a while, and the thing I'm
> surprised about is the unanimity of interest in doing it sooner rather
> than later.

To me it is.  As I said originally, something that might be
self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the
IRC meetings, etc.  It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing
X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y
instead."  Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y
were bad or negative.  Just surprising.

The only thing that doesn't surprise me is that the original plan was
deemed not enough, because that's just how cloud is.

>> > 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change
>> >Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp,
>> >but we should definitely get that stamp.)
>> When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to
>> Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings,
>> and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even
>> Atomic Host)?  While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG
>> members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will
>> not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem.
>
> Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora
> Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate
> to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or
> the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech).

Have we formally redefined it as such?  I feel like either I've been
asleep and missed a lot (I don't think so?), people are having
discussions around these things in places that are harder to follow,
or people are making assumptions.

> It might be a good idea to have a new mailing list for the new edition
> WG, and keep this one focused on Cloud SIG stuff across all Editions.
>
> As for Atomic... Atomic Host is a building block for the new thing, and
> I think we'd continue to make that block available on its own to those
> who want that, but not necessarily promote it.

Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a
foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well.  Which
is where some of my surprise comes from I guess.  I thought we'd
finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a
fundamentals level.  That's still possible I guess.

>> > 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required
>> >technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on
>> >those.
>> I'm curious to see what those might be.
>
> Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on
> whatever we promote as an installer/configurator.

I don't see a need for a new logo.  It's throwing out the well done
and now somewhat familiar branding work we've built up.  However,
people like new pretty things so whatever.

> Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la
> current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something
> else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host
> continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different
> cluster roles; I dunno.

I kind of think you want to stop calling them releases to be honest.
They aren't releases in the grand Fedora sense of the word.  They're
bundled and focused updates (service packs?) of content within the
grand Fedora release cycle.

I don't believe you'll get to actual true separate releases for
Editions until modularity enables such a thing.

> We'll also need a mirroring solution for ostrees. :-/

Needed for Atomic Workstation as well.

> QA: Tim Flink was at the FAD and made it quite clear that the Fedora QA
> team as it stands doesn't have bandwidth for more deliverables, but
> would be glad to consult. We'll need to a) rely on a lot of automation
> and b) bring in new people.

\o/

All of the above sounds fine, but none of it really seems to have
anything to do with FESCo.

josh
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [cloud] #154: make Fedora Atomic download page clearer

2016-06-15 Thread Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets 
#154: make Fedora Atomic download page clearer
---+-
 Reporter:  jberkus|   Owner:
 Type:  task   |  Status:  new
 Priority:  normal |   Milestone:  Future
Component:  Docker Host Image  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  Meeting|
---+-

Comment (by jberkus):

 Because of pending changes in our primary deliverables, this issue is
 going to be postponed until we decide what those are. At that time, we can
 move on a new design.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [cloud] #153: design, deploy and document Fedora OpenShift Playground (FOSP)

2016-06-15 Thread Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets 
#153: design, deploy and document Fedora OpenShift Playground (FOSP)
-+---
 Reporter:  goern|   Owner:  jberkus
 Type:  task |  Status:  assigned
 Priority:  normal   |   Milestone:  Future
Component:  ---  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  meeting  |
-+---
Changes (by jzb):

 * owner:   => jberkus
 * status:  new => assigned


Comment:

 Per discussion in today's meeting. Josh Berkus (jberkus) has agreed take
 point on this as single point of contact.

 Assigning ticket to him. We should revisit before Flock, but probably not
 right after Summit.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:17:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and
> > teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go
> > even further — not just a single container host, but a full container
> > cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting
> > _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_.
> Surprising.

Is it? That indicates something of a disconnect, I guess. It looked to
me like things were going this way for a while, and the thing I'm
surprised about is the unanimity of interest in doing it sooner rather
than later.

> > 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change
> >Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp,
> >but we should definitely get that stamp.)
> When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to
> Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings,
> and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even
> Atomic Host)?  While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG
> members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will
> not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem.

Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora
Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate
to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or
the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech).
It might be a good idea to have a new mailing list for the new edition
WG, and keep this one focused on Cloud SIG stuff across all Editions.

As for Atomic... Atomic Host is a building block for the new thing, and
I think we'd continue to make that block available on its own to those
who want that, but not necessarily promote it.

> > 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required
> >technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on
> >those.
> I'm curious to see what those might be.

Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on
whatever we promote as an installer/configurator.

Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la
current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something
else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host
continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different
cluster roles; I dunno.

We'll also need a mirroring solution for ostrees. :-/

QA: Tim Flink was at the FAD and made it quite clear that the Fedora QA
team as it stands doesn't have bandwidth for more deliverables, but
would be glad to consult. We'll need to a) rely on a lot of automation
and b) bring in new people.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

[cloud] #161: NTP should be enabled by default on Atomic Host

2016-06-15 Thread Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets 
#161: NTP should be enabled by default on Atomic Host
---+
 Reporter:  jberkus|  Owner:
 Type:  defect | Status:  new
 Priority:  normal |  Milestone:  Future
Component:  Docker Host Image  |   Keywords:
---+
 The way it is now:

 Timesyncd is disabled by default when one deploys atomic host.  Without
 synchronized time, Etcd does not work and you can't build a cluster.

 The way it should be:

 timesyncd should be enabled out-of-the-box.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [cloud] #148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions

2016-06-15 Thread Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets 
#148: Container "Packager" Guildelines and Naming Conventions
-+-
 Reporter:  maxamillion  |   Owner:
 Type:  task |  Status:  closed
 Priority:  normal   |   Milestone:  Future
Component:  ---  |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:  meeting  |
-+-
Changes (by maxamillion):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed


-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [cloud] #115: Fedora Cloud FAD (late 2015/early 2016)

2016-06-15 Thread Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets 
#115: Fedora Cloud FAD (late 2015/early 2016)
---+
 Reporter:  dustymabe  |   Owner:  dustymabe
 Type:  task   |  Status:  closed
 Priority:  normal |   Milestone:  Future
Component:  Planning   |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:  meeting|
---+
Changes (by dustymabe):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed


Comment:

 The FAD was completed last week:

 - Wiki Page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAD_Cloud_WG_2016
 - Etherpad: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/FedoraCloud-WG-
 FAD-2016
 - Blog: Coming soon!

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Josh Berkus 
On 06/15/2016 09:07 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it
>really is actually important. Possibilities include:
> 
>- Fedora Container Cluster Edition
>- Fedora OpenShift Edition
>- Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition
>- Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition

"Foosion"  ;-)

Seriously, I like Container Cluster or Container Cloud.

Maybe we should have a contest?

-- 
--
Josh Berkus
Project Atomic
Red Hat OSAS
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Josh Boyer 
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> Previously (at last year's Flock and after), we've talked about
> replacing the Fedora Cloud Edition with Fedora Atomic Edition. (See
> previous discussion on this list if you're unfamiliar with this
> decision and its rationale.)
>
> We hadn't actually had much movement on _doing_ that, though, so one of
> the goals of last week's Cloud WG FAD was to take the next concrete
> steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and
> teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go
> even further — not just a single container host, but a full container
> cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting
> _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_.

Surprising.

> Roughly, I see that as:
>
> 1. Make sure we have agreement from the current Cloud WG members who
>couldn't be there. We don't want to make big decisions like this
>entirely in a room somewhere without full community input.
>
> 2. Reformulate WG members to match new target; possibly some of the
>current WG members are more interested in other aspects of cloud
>computing, like continuing work on the Cloud Base image. That's
>absolutely fine (beyond fine - it's awesome!), but the whole point
>of the WG structure is to support the editions.
>
> 3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it
>really is actually important. Possibilities include:
>
>- Fedora Container Cluster Edition
>- Fedora OpenShift Edition
>- Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition
>- Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition
>
>and all have their plusses and minuses.
>
> 4. Update governance documents: that's:
>- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_PRD
>- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance
>
> 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change
>Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp,
>but we should definitely get that stamp.)

When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to
Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings,
and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even
Atomic Host)?  While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG
members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will
not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem.

> 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required
>technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on
>those.

I'm curious to see what those might be.

josh
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Scott Collier 



On 06/15/2016 11:07 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:

Previously (at last year's Flock and after), we've talked about
replacing the Fedora Cloud Edition with Fedora Atomic Edition. (See
previous discussion on this list if you're unfamiliar with this
decision and its rationale.)

We hadn't actually had much movement on _doing_ that, though, so one of
the goals of last week's Cloud WG FAD was to take the next concrete
steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and
teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go
even further — not just a single container host, but a full container
cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting
_that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_.


This is awesome.  I've already created a simple one off blog post using 
Fedora 24 & Origin on AWS as a single host.  I'd like to continue 
iterating through that into a cluster.




Roughly, I see that as:

1. Make sure we have agreement from the current Cloud WG members who
couldn't be there. We don't want to make big decisions like this
entirely in a room somewhere without full community input.


I'm onboard.



2. Reformulate WG members to match new target; possibly some of the
current WG members are more interested in other aspects of cloud
computing, like continuing work on the Cloud Base image. That's
absolutely fine (beyond fine - it's awesome!), but the whole point
of the WG structure is to support the editions.

3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it
really is actually important. Possibilities include:

- Fedora Container Cluster Edition
- Fedora OpenShift Edition
- Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition
- Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition

and all have their plusses and minuses.

4. Update governance documents: that's:
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_PRD
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance

5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change
Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp,
but we should definitely get that stamp.)

6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required
technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on
those.


___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

2016-06-15 Thread Matthew Miller 
Previously (at last year's Flock and after), we've talked about
replacing the Fedora Cloud Edition with Fedora Atomic Edition. (See
previous discussion on this list if you're unfamiliar with this
decision and its rationale.)

We hadn't actually had much movement on _doing_ that, though, so one of
the goals of last week's Cloud WG FAD was to take the next concrete
steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and
teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go
even further — not just a single container host, but a full container
cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting
_that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_.

Roughly, I see that as:

1. Make sure we have agreement from the current Cloud WG members who
   couldn't be there. We don't want to make big decisions like this
   entirely in a room somewhere without full community input.

2. Reformulate WG members to match new target; possibly some of the
   current WG members are more interested in other aspects of cloud
   computing, like continuing work on the Cloud Base image. That's
   absolutely fine (beyond fine - it's awesome!), but the whole point
   of the WG structure is to support the editions.

3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it
   really is actually important. Possibilities include:

   - Fedora Container Cluster Edition
   - Fedora OpenShift Edition
   - Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition
   - Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition

   and all have their plusses and minuses. 

4. Update governance documents: that's:
   - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_PRD
   - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance

5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change
   Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp,
   but we should definitely get that stamp.)

6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required
   technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on
   those.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org