----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" <cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, server@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:43:27 AM > Subject: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship > > Hi all, > > During today's Cloud Working Group meeting we had a short but spirited > discussion on the roles of the Cloud and Server Working Group and the > editions we're producing. > > I wanted to open a discussion on that topic (see also [1]) ahead of > planning for F24 to see if the current setup makes sense, how we can > collaborate, and so forth. I have opinions but I want to kick off a > discussion without starting from a specific viewpoint. > > And... go! My two cents: I'm looking at Fedora's editions with certain expectations. I see Workstation, and I know what I'm going to get and where I expect it to run. I see Server, and I expect: * a fairly minimal image * something I can run on bare metal, VM or cloud Instead, Server is a big image (2.1GB) that's not supposed to be run in the cloud. Or, I assume I can rough something out w/ vagrant in VMs, and then deploy that on metal, but in Fedora, those are different variants, and things like LVM vs. no LVM (if I recall correctly) come into play, and there's no vagrant box for Fedora Server, because that's a cloud thing (I guess??). A no-cloud rule for Fedora Server feels antiquated and weird to me. It's not the end of the world that my expected Fedora Server edition is in reality split into two separate editions, Server and Cloud, but I've seen it mentioned that Cloud Edition adoption has been slow -- it might be more findable for people if it's presented with or somehow integrated with the Server Edition. Finally, I think that the movement of Fedora Atomic has been a bit slow, and I've witnessed the confusion of having cloud-base and atomic smushed together (in mtgs & such). If running well in cloud environments was part of the Server WG charter, and atomic was the focus in the Cloud WG, that'd be a cleaner arrangement. But, maybe this just means that atomic needs its own SIG (or WG -- I'm not 100% clear on the difference). Of course, just because some might expect the Editions to work a certain way doesn't mean that this is the right way to do it, and I know that many things went into the definition of the WGs the way there are. Regards, Jason > > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/127 > -- > Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS > jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/ > Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > server mailing list > server@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
