Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-08-01 Thread Michael Gugino
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:56 PM Colin Walters wrote: > The OpenShift installer and Machine Config Operator are built around Ignition. MCO is not built around ignition, it's built around the ignition file format, it's a completely separate implementation. > One pitch for Ignition is that it

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-08-01 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Michael Gugino wrote: > I tried FCoS prior to the release by using the assembler on github. > Too much secret sauce in how to actually construct an image. I > thought atomic was much more polished, not really sure what the > value-add of ignition is in this

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-29 Thread Jonathan Lebon
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:42 AM Michael Gugino wrote: > > I tried FCoS prior to the release by using the assembler on github. > Too much secret sauce in how to actually construct an image. Hmm, that's odd. FCOS is definitely magnitudes easier to build locally than FAH ever was. The steps are

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-27 Thread Aleksandar Lazic
Am 25.07.2019 um 19:31 schrieb Daniel Comnea: > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:01 PM Michael Gugino > wrote: > > I don't really view the 'bucket of parts' and 'complete solution' as > competing ideas.  It would be nice to build the 'complete solution' >

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-27 Thread Aleksandar Lazic
ial set of people want that flexibility it’s a great data > point. > >> >> Thanks, >> Kevin >> >> From: dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com >> [dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com] on behalf of Josh Berkus >> [jber...@redhat.com] >> Sent

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Jason Brooks
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 5:39 AM Christian Glombek wrote: > I agree with the sentiment that supporting more OSes is a good thing. > However, I believe it is in the community's best interest to get a working > version of OKD4 rather sooner than later. > +1 An OKD that's close to OCP will come

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Clayton Coleman
[jber...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:23 AM > To: Clayton Coleman; Aleksandar Lazic > Cc: users; dev > Subject: Re: Follow up on OKD 4 > >> On 7/25/19 6:51 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote: >> 1. Openshift 4 isn’t flexible in the ways people want (Ie you want to &

RE: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Fox, Kevin M
9 11:23 AM To: Clayton Coleman; Aleksandar Lazic Cc: users; dev Subject: Re: Follow up on OKD 4 On 7/25/19 6:51 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote: > 1. Openshift 4 isn’t flexible in the ways people want (Ie you want to > add an rpm to the OS to get a kernel module, or you want to ship a > co

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Clayton Coleman
vel. > > Should it be "okd k8s distro" or "fedora k8s distro" or something else? > > Thanks, > Kevin > > -- > *From:* Clayton Coleman [ccole...@redhat.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2019 10:31 AM >

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Josh Berkus
On 7/25/19 6:51 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote: > 1. Openshift 4 isn’t flexible in the ways people want (Ie you want to > add an rpm to the OS to get a kernel module, or you want to ship a > complex set of config and managing things with mcd looks too hard) > 2. You want to build and maintain these

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Daniel Comnea
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:01 PM Michael Gugino wrote: > I don't really view the 'bucket of parts' and 'complete solution' as > competing ideas. It would be nice to build the 'complete solution' > from the 'bucket of parts' in a reproducible, customizable manner. > "How is this put together"

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Michael Gugino
I don't really view the 'bucket of parts' and 'complete solution' as competing ideas. It would be nice to build the 'complete solution' from the 'bucket of parts' in a reproducible, customizable manner. "How is this put together" should be easily followed, enough so that someone can 'put it

RE: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Fox, Kevin M
: Fox, Kevin M Cc: Michael Gugino; users; dev Subject: Re: Follow up on OKD 4 On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:45 PM Fox, Kevin M mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov>> wrote: Ah, this raises an interesting discussion I've been wanting to have for a while. There are potentially lots of things you could c

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-25 Thread Clayton Coleman
> On Jul 25, 2019, at 4:19 AM, Aleksandar Lazic > wrote: > > HI. > >> Am 25.07.2019 um 06:52 schrieb Michael Gugino: >> I think FCoS could be a mutable detail. To start with, support for >> plain-old-fedora would be helpful to make the platform more portable, >> particularly the MCO and

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Michael Gugino
I think FCoS could be a mutable detail. To start with, support for plain-old-fedora would be helpful to make the platform more portable, particularly the MCO and machine-api. If I had to state a goal, it would be "Bring OKD to the largest possible range of linux distros to become the defacto

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Clayton Coleman
> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:14 PM, Michael Gugino wrote: > > I think what I'm looking for is more 'modular' rather than DIY. CVO > would need to be adapted to separate container payload from host > software (or use something else), and maintaining cross-distro > machine-configs might prove tedious,

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Michael Gugino
I think what I'm looking for is more 'modular' rather than DIY. CVO would need to be adapted to separate container payload from host software (or use something else), and maintaining cross-distro machine-configs might prove tedious, but for the most part, rest of everything from the k8s bins up,

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Clayton Coleman
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:45 PM Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Ah, this raises an interesting discussion I've been wanting to have for a > while. > > There are potentially lots of things you could call a distro. > > Most linux distro's are made up of several layers: > 1. boot loader - components to get

RE: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Fox, Kevin M
evin From: dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com [dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com] on behalf of Clayton Coleman [ccole...@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 9:04 AM To: Michael Gugino Cc: users; dev Subject: Re: Follow up on OKD 4 On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Michael Gu

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Clayton Coleman
> From: dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com [ > dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com] on behalf of Michael Gugino [ > mgug...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 7:40 AM > To: Clayton Coleman > Cc: users; dev > Subject: Re: Follow up o

RE: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Fox, Kevin M
From: dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com [dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com] on behalf of Michael Gugino [mgug...@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 7:40 AM To: Clayton Coleman Cc: users; dev Subject: Re: Follow up on OKD 4 I tried FCoS prior

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Justin Cook
On 24 Jul 2019, 04:57 -0500, Daniel Comnea , wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All i'm trying to say with the above is: > > > > > > > > > > Should we go with IRC as a form of communication we should then be > > > > > ready to have bodies lined up to: > > > > > > > > > > • look after and admin

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Clayton Coleman
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Michael Gugino wrote: > I tried FCoS prior to the release by using the assembler on github. > Too much secret sauce in how to actually construct an image. I > thought atomic was much more polished, not really sure what the > value-add of ignition is in this

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Michael Gugino
I tried FCoS prior to the release by using the assembler on github. Too much secret sauce in how to actually construct an image. I thought atomic was much more polished, not really sure what the value-add of ignition is in this usecase. Just give me a way to build simple image pipelines and I

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-24 Thread Daniel Comnea
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Justin Cook wrote: > On 22 Jul 2019, 12:24 +0100, Daniel Comnea , wrote: > > I totally agree with that but let's do a quick reality check taking > example some IRC channels, shall we? > >- ansible IRC channel doesn't log the conversation - does the comments >

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-22 Thread Daniel Comnea
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:52 AM Justin Cook wrote: > On 22 Jul 2019, 00:07 +0100, Gleidson Nascimento , wrote: > > I'm with Daniel, I believe it is easier to attract help by using Slack > instead of IRC. > > > My experience over many years — especially with OCP3 — IRC with public > logs smashes

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-22 Thread Justin Cook
On 22 Jul 2019, 00:07 +0100, Gleidson Nascimento , wrote: > I'm with Daniel, I believe it is easier to attract help by using Slack > instead of IRC. My experience over many years — especially with OCP3 — IRC with public logs smashes Slack. It’s not comparable. The proof is in the pudding.

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-21 Thread Gleidson Nascimento
I'm with Daniel, I believe it is easier to attract help by using Slack instead of IRC. From: dev-boun...@lists.openshift.redhat.com on behalf of Daniel Comnea Sent: 20 July 2019 1:02 PM To: Christian Glombek Cc: users ; dev Subject: Re: Follow up on OKD 4

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-21 Thread Daniel Comnea
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 5:27 PM Clayton Coleman wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:40 PM Justin Cook wrote: > >> Once upon a time Freenode #openshift-dev was vibrant with loads of >> activity and publicly available logs. I jumped in asked questions and Red >> Hatters came from the woodwork

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-21 Thread Clayton Coleman
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:40 PM Justin Cook wrote: > Once upon a time Freenode #openshift-dev was vibrant with loads of > activity and publicly available logs. I jumped in asked questions and Red > Hatters came from the woodwork and some amazing work was done. > > Perfect. > > Slack not so

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-20 Thread Justin Cook
Once upon a time Freenode #openshift-dev was vibrant with loads of activity and publicly available logs. I jumped in asked questions and Red Hatters came from the woodwork and some amazing work was done. Perfect. Slack not so much. Since Monday there have been three comments with two reply

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-19 Thread Daniel Comnea
Hi Christian, Welcome and thanks for volunteering on kicking off this effort. My vote goes to #openshift-dev slack too, OpenShift Commons Slack scope was/is a bit different geared towards ISVs. IRC - personally have no problem, however the chances to attract more folks (especially non RH

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-19 Thread Christian Glombek
+1 for using kubernetes #openshift-dev slack for the OKD WG meetings On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:49 PM Clayton Coleman wrote: > The kube #openshift-dev slack might also make sense, since we have 518 > people there right now > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:46 PM Christian Glombek > wrote: > >> Hi

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-19 Thread Clayton Coleman
The kube #openshift-dev slack might also make sense, since we have 518 people there right now On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:46 PM Christian Glombek wrote: > Hi everyone, > > first of all, I'd like to thank Clayton for kicking this off! > > As I only just joined this ML, let me quickly introduce

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

2019-07-19 Thread Christian Glombek
Hi everyone, first of all, I'd like to thank Clayton for kicking this off! As I only just joined this ML, let me quickly introduce myself: I am an Associate Software Engineer on the OpenShift machine-config-operator (mco) team and I'm based out of Berlin, Germany. Last year, I participated in