+1

To be clear, I don't think this impacts FLIBS at all, correct @jcajka ? That would be upgraded/changed separately.

+1

Is there a more detailed list of "missing infrastructure container images" ? Are these in the fedora registery or somewhere else? who generates them and how?

@kevin not really yet, I plan to provide equivalent to the most of upstream images through the Fedora registry (eventually).
Initial set of image review requests(definitively not exhaustive, these should cover most basic use case, single host oc cluster up).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593302
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593668
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593669
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561433
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593670
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593672
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593673
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593674
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593680

@jwboyer what is FLIBS?

@kevin not really yet, I plan to provide equivalent to the most of upstream images through the Fedora registry (eventually).
Initial set of image review requests(definitively not exhaustive, these should cover most basic use case, single host oc cluster up).
...

Cool. So these are optional and people will just use the upstream ones if they are not finished in time?

@kevin Yes, I don't plan to change the default images source(for upstream supported architectures, atm read x86_64) until f30 or later when there will be enough confidence in them.

@jwboyer what is FLIBS?

Fedora Layered Image Build System: https://docs.pagure.org/releng/layered_image_build_service.html

This is what Fedora uses to build our container images. IIRC, it is using Origin and I just wanted to be clear that your change request doesn't really impact it.

+1 please make sure that the missing upgrade path is properly covered in the release notes. Is it usual to upgrade systems this way for this use case or are the systems usually just re-installed anyhow?

@jwboyer what is FLIBS?

Fedora Layered Image Build System: https://docs.pagure.org/releng/layered_image_build_service.html
This is what Fedora uses to build our container images. IIRC, it is using Origin and I just wanted to be clear that your change request doesn't really impact it.

Ah... I know it as "just" OSBS :). Shouldn't in any way AFAIK they are not using the Fedora bits of origin. I'm in touch with folks around it and especially @cverna and helping them to extend it to other non-intel architectures.

+1 please make sure that the missing upgrade path is properly covered in the release notes. Is it usual to upgrade systems this way for this use case or are the systems usually just re-installed anyhow?

There is not much to cover(dnf update will be working as expected). This is only mentioned to set the expectations that dnf will "magically" update whole deployed cluster. Update path is big project on its own AFAIK not even upstream fully covers it atm.

+1

+1

Can the Change be renamed to "OpenShift Origin 3.10"? There's also Origin from OriginLabs, which is not packaged for Fedora, but we have some support for the format, so it's easy to be confused.

@zbyszek Sure, done, it will be more clear now. I have named it after the name of the package in the distro, but yeah, from marketing stand point it will be better, I believe.

It has been over a week and this proposal has +5 votes. It is approved.

@sgallagh we have hit significant issue12 with integrating origin 3.10 in to the F29(cgroup changes) and we would like to go with 3.11 release(which is fixed, backport in general is not feasible as long upstream will also not backport), which coincides with F29 planned release/freeze. What should be the process to "rename" the change to reflect that? Do we need FESCO approval?

@jcajka So, to be clear, 3.10 (currently delivered with F29 Beta) has critical issues that are known to be fixed in 3.11 and you want a FESCo exception to ship 3.11 in Fedora 29?

Given that it's likely to be at least as much effort to downgrade to 3.9 as it would be to upgrade to 3.11, I'm +1 for allowing this.

+1 here for the same reasons.

+1 for similar reasons

+1 to upgrade

I think it'd be best to build the latest version (origin-3.11.0-0.alpha1.0 ?) in F29 now, to give people a chance to test.

+1 to upgrade, and I also agree that we should get that alpha in now that @zbyszek mentioned.

@zbyszek Yes, that is my plan when this gets approved. I have already tested it in F29 and @sinnykumari have confirmed the results.

This was discussed in today's FESCo meeting.
AGREED: The update of the Change from 3.10 to 3.11 is approved (+7, 0, 0) (zbyszek, 15:56:57)

For the record I have adjusted name of the tracking bug and change proposal wiki page(along with creating redirect for origin3.11 change page).