On 06/15/2016 11:09 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > 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. 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 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 > -- -- Josh Berkus Project Atomic Red Hat OSAS _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
