On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:08:14AM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > Greetings! > > At the hackathon we did recently, we talked about the need for one of us > to attend the Modularity WG meetings so we could be more aware of what > work is coming our way before it's a surprise, and I volunteered to be > that person. > > For $reasons, today was the first of the WG meetings I was able to > attend. There were two items of interest: > > > New service > =========== > > I learned that Factory 2 is developing a new service called Ursa Major. > I gathered that its mission is to make it so that RPMs that depend on > modules can get those modules pulled into their buildroot. > > Ralph, is the above correct? If so, what time frame do you anticipate us > needing to get this service deployed to infrastructure? > > > Meetings > ======== > > The modularity WG suggested that it was probably not that beneficial for > me to attend their meetings as an infra liason, as they are not actually > particularly familiar with the infrastructure side of things. They The fact that they are not familiar with Infra seems to me like a very good reason to be "involved" in their discussions to ensure new things aren't going to unforeseeably impact us (double negative are hard). > suggested instead that we interface with Factory 2. I know that at least Patrick and I have regular meetings with Ralph to discuss the Factory 2/Infra interactions. I remember sending a report about such meeting once, I didn't do it much since, maybe I should start this again and stick with it (we had our latest meeting just the past Monday so I should just go ahead and send a report for this discussion). Overall I am not against this, I just don't want to add more meetings to Ralph's agenda. So if we change format, then maybe Patrick and I's meetings should be reconsidered. > A suggestion was made that perhaps we could have an agenda item on *our* > meeting, perhaps once a month, where we invite modularity WG and factory > 2 to talk with us about what is coming our way, or about issues that > need dealing with. I thought this was a fine suggestion, so I wanted to This is a good idea with the caveat that Kevin pointed out :) Pierre _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
