On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:53:59AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 05/01/2014 10:40 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:07:25PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Hi, > > sorry for the late reply, I'm away on a workshop... > > > >> So, this change went to fesco last week, but there were some > >> questions/issues around it. Could change owners respond to: > >> > >> 1) sgallagh wasn't sure this was a self contained change: see: > >> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1250#comment:19 > > > > sgallagh wrote "I don't consider this to be a self-contained > > change. If it goes into effect, we (FESCo) are basically stating > > that this a recommended way for users to gather journald logs in a > > central location" > > > > I don't know where this conclusion comes from. This change is > > about adding some new software... When e.g. Ganesha is proposed as > > a Change, it doesn't that it is the recommended network filesystem > > implementation. > > > > It's kind of implicit in the Change proposal. When you submit a > Change, you are indicating that you want this to be something that > Fedora promotes (both from an engineering standpoint and a marketing one). I modifed the Change text to indicate that it is an alternative to exisiting solutions, and can be used in parallel. > > He also writes "particularly since it appears to have been > > developed without the input of the journald creators". The code in > > question has been reviewed on the systemd mailing list, and > > discussed internally. Also, although I didn't have anything to do > > with initial journald creation, I have been one the people handling > > bugs and adding features to it over the last two years. > > This was an impression I got from the discussion thread up to that > point. I didn't get a sense that the core journald developers were in > agreement with this as the approach (and as noted above, it appeared > that this was being pushed as the One True Way to do this). OK. > >> 2) FESCo in general wondered if we advertised this as a change > >> if people would see it as the recommended/default way to handle > >> remote system logs. Is it planned to be that, or is it just a > >> 'here's a preview of how we hope to do this down the road'? > > The latter. Not that I think it will not work, but making it the > > default/recommended thing when it's not even written yet seems > > premature. > > > > Right, as noted above we should be clear about this when we talk about it. > > > >> 3) There were general concerns around the protocol/setup... but I > >> think those were raised before in this thread. Is there any > >> revisiting of the protocol/etc planned? Or things are pretty set > >> at this point? > > This was proposed as a Change exactly for the purpose of gathering > > feedback, even of the fargoing kind like that. There's lot of > > merit in the proposed protocol modifications, but it's a fairly big > > modification, and I haven't had time to properly think about it. > > > > So the obvious question here is whether we should accept this as a > Change now. Given that you are contemplating a significant protocol > modification, would it make more sense to defer this Change until F22? > (that doesn't mean you can't have the code in Fedora, just that we > won't market it and push people towards testing it in F21). It's still a couple of months which should be enough to implement the protocol change before F21. I would like to keep the Change for F21. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
