... to implement FESCo decision from Jan 15, 2014: activity reports should be added to this ticket every other week, and ACKed or discussed in FESCo meetings.
WG liaisons, please add activity reports before the meeting of Jan 29.
Any reports to note for this weeks meeting?
The Workstation WG submitted it's PRD for approval, which is in a separate ticket.
There is an on-going thread on the advisory-board list about enabling 3rd party repositories that contain non-free software. This is a follow up to FESCo ticket 1201 as an escalation to the Board on if that is acceptable per Fedora's policies/guidelines/foundations. I suspect that will resolve itself at the Board level but encourage those interested to participate. (Board ticket 169 has also been opened for this, but discussion is essentially on advisory-board.)
The Workstation WG has nothing further to report at the moment.
The Base Design WG has finished the initial Mission statement and formulated more specific goals and scopes here:
During the definition process for the set of components belonging to Base via a few simple rules
contains kernel, rpm, yum, gcc
is self hosting
it became clear that one of the immediate goals should be to prune the build requires and disentangle the mass of packages for Base. Currently there are 1804 components required to fulfil the above requirement. So we're currently investigating the potential for pruning this to a much smaller number.
Harald Hoyer provided a first in-depth analysis of the situation:
which now lead to a detailed review of the 65 components listed at the end, contact the respective component owners and propose potential changes to improve the situation.
Next steps for Base will be collect more information from the other WGs in order to formulate more specifically the additional functional areas that would be housed in Base.
Thanks & regards, Phil
Env and Stack WG sent PRD for review on mailing list and also created a separated ticket:
WG decided to adjust PRD according to FESCo comments on their next meeting.
Server WG has completed our PRD and submitted it as ticket #1222 for FESCo review.
We have begun working on implementation needs and scoping.
Server coordinated with the Cloud group to determine where to put the blurry line between the two products, culminating also in a goal that it should be possible to promote a Fedora Cloud "livestock" into a Fedora Server "pet" running in a cloud infrastructure.
The Fedora Server WG and SIG is currently working on determining our technical needs for deploying Server Roles. We will likely pick a single reference role to deliver for the first release in the Fedora 21 timeframe.
Cloud WG has also completed the PRD, submitted as ticket #1225. Our weekly meeting is going on right now, and figuring out next steps is on the agenda.
Tenative deadline of Feb 17th for next working group deliverables. Please try and engage other groups with plans as soon as you can. (+7,0,0)
Can liasons communicate this information back to the groups?
The next deliverable is:
"The second deliverable should be a list of necessary changes from existing Fedora procedures needed to release the product. This should be ordered to show what things depend on other changes and at which point the changes will mean that we can no longer produce the current type of Fedora. This will allow us to identify the resources needed by what teams in order to implement the plan and at what point we may need to have a longer than normal release cycle to do tooling work."
While not strictly required this week, I'll provide an update on Fedora Server progress.
We lacked quorum for our meeting yesterday, so it was not held. However, there is significant discussion on how to implement Server Roles occurring on both the devel@ and server@ mailing lists.
In particular, Kevin sent out a straw-man proposal on the server@ list that has gathered some useful feedback.
A community member on devel@ came out earlier with a request for Fedora.next that turned out to be essentially what the Server WG was proposing for Server Roles (side-note: I like that this justifies our plans somewhat). This conversation has resulted in a great deal of interesting discussion about how to handle writing a configuration API.
Env and Stack WG:
* PRD was partially updated as requested. Rest will be updated after a discussion on mailing list.
Env and Stack WG:
yesterday we start speaking about coprs repositories, which might be merged into fedora-ugly (different name needed). Discussion will continue on mailing list.
we'd like to prioritize tasks according to needs of other Products
Server WG doesn't have much to report this week as most of the active members of the working group have been traveling to various conferences (FOSDEM, DevConf.cz, etc.) so little progress was made.
Some conversations were held informally at the conferences between working groups. One of the noteworthy points is that we generally agree that there should be no package divergence between Products except in the last extreme. We also agreed that if a Product needs a different default configuration from the others, the proper approach would be to diverge the default configurations in -config subpackages that could be interchangeable.
Same for the Base Design WG.
Review for the buildrequires cleanup is progressing, already got cs-certificates fixed (doesn't need java-openjdk anymore). About half of the 65 initial up for review packages have been reviewed so far.
Next up will be discussion of more concrete and detailed package list(s) for Base and after the DevConf an updated to the features Base most likely should offer:
Workstation WG has little in the way of actual progress this week, but things are starting to clear up as to intentions and details. A massive thread of which DE to use as the basis and default resulted in the somewhat expected lengthy debate, but hopefully the clarification thread from Monday is helping there. Hopefully the WG can decide that this week and begin the next steps. Beyond that, we're still waiting on Board approval of the PRD.
FESCo urges the WGs to finish the specs as soon as possible so they can be properly reviewed and discussed.
Any status or reports this week?
We are discussing additional repository:
The additonal repository will be called playground.
copr should be able to build from git url, not only from srpm (mmaslano will file a RFE).
What we need to give to fesco about changes for f21:
* toshio has started a draft https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28draft%29
The Workstation WG has settled on GNOME as the default desktop environment to base the product on. Matthias has written a few drafts of the Technical Specification and we're currently working through that. Things seem to be going smoothly there. The KDE team has some specific items to add/adjust, but no major concerns thus far.
As Phil mentioned, the Spec was discussed with Base and nothing immediately was identified for them to work on.
It's been quiet in Cloud, with a lot of people traveling. We have our meeting the hour before FESCo, and I'll add a quick update here at the last minute.
== Server WG ==
We set some primary goals for F21, which I sent out in a blog post: https://fedoraserver-wgblog.rhcloud.com/primary-goals-for-fedora-server-in-fedora-21/
We also made some significant progress on our technical specification. We'll be having an overflow meeting later this week to continue on this.
Meeting minutes from this week:
Replying to [comment:22 pknirsch]:
Biggest topic around Workstation was the plan to use a different installation frontend. That needs to be discussed with the anaconda team, rcm and FESCO by the Workstation WG.
Is there more information about the "topic" / "plan" to be discussed by FESCo?
Cloud will hold an activity day on Friday to whip our changes / deliverables list into shape.
We are still discussing policies for additional repository - Playground requirements. Summary of details can be found at:
Two Change proposals were started based on items from PRD:
The Cloud WG update is basically: We worked on and submitted https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1241
- Discussed with sgallagh the current Tech Spec of Server. Overall seen again no actionable dependencies towards Base.
- Discussed and gave feedback on several points of the Server Tech Spec. Sgallagh feeding that back to the Server WG team.
Workstation has been working through the Tech Spec: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification
We're still chipping away at it, but the bulk of the content is present. The impacts to other teams are fairly limited, with the one outstanding exception of the KDE issue raised in another ticket.
(I believe we are in the "off" week for this, right?)
'''Env and Stacks WG'''
Updated proposal about Playground repository. We should have complete list of requirements before April 7th. Other goals of our WG shouldn't interfere with "making of Fedora".
== Server WG==
We've agreed on how to handle the firewall when Roles are involved and we're actively engaged in discussions on how to package and deliver Roles on the system. More to follow later.
- Canceled meeting last week due to empty agenda
- Planed a 2nd round of reviews of tech specs for this week's meeting
- No other big news this week
Still discussing Playground repo. The big question is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28draft%29#1_Big_repo_vs_multiple_small_ones
Cloud: we're going through the list of changes we said we would file, finding owners, and filing them.
Also, some discussion about Fedora Atomic / ostree.
Server: Working on defining the Server Role D-BUS API.
Env WG: nothing this week. I plan to finish Change proposal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Changes_Drafts/Playground_repository
Server: Had a meeting to discuss documentation needs and Change filing. Will be filling out Change requests this week for:
Framework for Server Role Deployment
Featured Server Role: Domain Controller
Featured Server Role: SQL Database Server
Cockpit Server Management Console
* OpenLMI Support for Server Roles
* working on converting giant wiki todo list to trac tickets...
* and many of those include filing changes...
* which should be in rapid progress soon.
* Nothing to report this week
Env and Stack:
3 change proposals sent to devel list:
The last proposed Change is under some pretty heavy discussion. It is my hope we can find some middle ground and work on a slightly different solution.
I'm at RH Summit and heavily distracted. We have a number of Changes in progress, and work is progressing on some of those.
On another note, and I hope not surprisingly, I am for Josh's "middle ground" solution for the firewall question.
Any reports from working groups this week?
Any reports from working groups this week?
Jim Perrin stepped down as WG member
Stef Walter selected to fill the vacant seat at yesterday's meeting
Thomas Woerner will be leading development of the Server Role API
Multiple discussions have been held around the Server Role API needs over the last two weeks.
http://piratepad.ca/p/ServerRoleRequirements is a working document containing the API requirements. It is still under development and will be moved to the Fedora Wiki when complete.
Documentation groups have requested that we publish reference kickstart files for deploying Fedora Server in common configurations. We will work with QA to share any kickstarts they develop for testing with the documentation team.
* Something that fell off our radar: we need to plan exactly what install media we are going to support for F21. We are committed to a DVD/USB install, but have not settled on an approach for network install yet. I will add this to next week's agenda.
And I have an action item to get people connected for working on Fedora in Google Compute Engine, Google's cloud service, but that hasn't actually gone anywhere yet.
Server WG (2014-05-21):
Resumed efforts to design the Role API
Responded to design team queries for marketing targets
Env and Stacks WG:
not much. We discussed Taskotron with tflink.
* Planing on getting more active hands to work on the cleanup work
* Still tracking other WGs efforts and looking at F21 plans
* Tracking merge reviews
Sorry for the late ping: this is the bi-weekly reporting week. Anyone have anything to report on behalf of their Working Groups?
Cloud: we didn't have a meeting last week. We're making progress with getting the release engineering questions sorted out, and, chiefly, Rawhide images are now properly building in anaconda (thanks to a lot of work from Dennis and Ian). David Gay is working on the automatic image upload service, too. And we're getting the framework for QA and the test plan in place, if not the actual test plan yet.
Server: We're progressing with the Server Role API, with a formal proposal up on the list and currently going through iterative review. However, given the time remaining, we voted in our meeting this week to formally ask for additional time before the Change Freeze to complete it, noting that this is going to be a blocker for our release. (Our feeling is that we should be up-front about needing the additional time, rather than forcing a slip at the end, but that's up to FESCo to decide.
We also discussed our support for ARM32, which had slipped off our radar. We plan to support those ARM systems that can install using Anaconda initially (in F21) and will consider image-based installs for other ARM boards to be non-blocking install media, essentially Spins.
to comment on this ticket.
Copyright © 2014-2017 Red Hat
2.90.1 — Documentation