On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/28/2015 03:03 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Could you provide a bit more context without necessarily offering your >> suggestions? It's somewhat hard to discuss this without it going >> everywhere without some kind of background into the overlaps or >> disparities that you see. > > I can try to give some context, and yes we probably need some scope. To > be clear, this isn't so much disparities/overlaps that *I* see - I just > took the AI to start the discussion. > > Cloud ticket 127 from roshi opened the discussion about the server WG > wanting "to do some coordination with workstation and cloud" and asked > for brainstorming. And then discussion followed which I won't try to > summarize because I may not do it justice, so please see [1]. Read, thanks for the pointer. > Some useful questions, though: > > - Does the current set of editions make sense, as produced by the Cloud > and Server WG? Well, confusing on "what is the Cloud base image for" aside, I think the editions as produced make sense. > - Is the distinction between Cloud and Server wrong? > > There's a lot of history here - the Cloud group really started as a > place to look at packaging OpenStack, OpenShift, Eucalyptus, CloudStack > for Fedora. Then it evolved into cloud images and then a focus on Atomic. IMO, no it isn't wrong. > - Should we have a "server" image in the cloud? Is the current suite of > editions confusing? I don't think it's confusing, but I also don't think having a server image in the cloud is a bad idea. > And most importantly - what started the initial initial conversation, > how should the Cloud & Server folks work together next release? Given that I only have tangential interest in either WG, this suggestion might not make sense. However, I see Server and Cloud as two separate but complimentary things. The *could* be the same thing, except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single offering we had for some kind of C&S WG I would cry. I hate it because it is ridiculous to use in a non-cloud environment, and Server very much has that as part of it's reach. So assuming we don't have one image for both, I think they can still work together more closely. I like the idea in the ticket of having a cloudtoserver script. I also like the idea of a server to cloud script that could convert a Server install into a Cloud image. If we were to take into account that an admin might want to provision a Server in a VM or on a bare metal machine and then say "take this and make it a cloud image" with said script, that might work well too. The Server image is easier for a human to use by far, and cloudify-ing a Server install into a deployable cloud image might result in a larger cloud image but some people won't care. Anyway, the gist of my ramblings is that I think the two groups could compliment each other better but I still view them as separate Editions with separate (but possibly overlapping) audiences. My ramblings my be wrong, but they make sense in my head. josh _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
