On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:11:52PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > I was asked to start this in today's Server meeting. The genesis for > me was, I have more questions than answers and I'm fairly convinced > I'm not the only person who's kinda shrugging not knowing what all the > questions even are. Answers are important too, but good questions to > properly explore scope and liabilities have to come first. Cool -- thanks for doing this. > Cloud WG folks had decided a while ago to focus on Atomic Host, and > sounds like now they only want to do that, and form a new Atomic WG. > [1][2] *nod* -- that's the plan, at least for the WG and Edition. There's still interest in working on cloud technologies in general in the SIG, though. > I see 8 base images for Cloud that aren't rpm-ostree based. Are they > in need of a new home? Who's using them? Are they all needed? Does it > make sense for Server WG to produce the non-Atomic Cloud deliverable > images? Yes, at least some of them are in need of a new home. I don't know if they are all needed. I know a non-zero but small number of people are using them for their basic intended purpose (for building scale-out infrastructure in EC2 or OpenStack) but I know a lot of other people are using them as a convenient way to get a small-ish Fedora VM image to run locally. > Being contrary, I wondered about consolidation as a solution rather > than adding another WG and product. [3] Does anyone see Cloud WG, or > Server WG as spread too thinly? What estimate do you have for overlap > in work between Cloud and Server? Is there an economy of scale by > combining them? And is it both useful and practical to have subgroups > within a WG, to split out the sub variants of Server: hardware, cloud, > atomic host? The more I think about this, the more I like your merger suggestion. > Server and Workstation WGs have expressed interest in moving to > rpm-ostree based deployments also. So I'm confused by what an Atomic > WG would produce that's unique. There are huge differences between See this in-progress document: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/ProjectFAO The goal of the Fedora Atomic/Openshift edition would be a multi-node cluster based arond Atomic and OpenShift Origin. > It might be that the Cloud and Server PRD refreshes help sort some of > this stuff out too. Yes. :) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
