On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
