15:00:33 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-10-21)
15:00:33 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Oct 21 15:00:33 2014 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:33 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:33 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss stefw adamw simo tuanta mitr
15:00:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw tuanta
15:00:33 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
15:00:39 <nirik> morning.
15:00:49 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
15:00:50 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
15:00:54 <tuanta> .hellomynameis tuanta
15:00:55 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
15:00:59 <mitr> Hello
15:01:16 <sgallagh> nirik: Someday, can we shorten that to .hello?
15:01:37 * junland is here
15:01:38 <nirik> we could.
15:01:57 <sgallagh> Welcome, junland. Nice to see a new face.
15:02:00 <tuanta> it should be a new easyfix :)
15:02:06 * danofsatx is here for observation
15:02:13 <junland> Thank you glad to be onboard with you all.
15:02:25 * sgallagh pictures danofsatx holding a clipboard and taking notes on our behavior.
15:02:39 <danofsatx> notes? what're those?
15:02:48 <nirik> .hello kevin
15:02:49 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
15:02:50 * danofsatx is surprised he still has a 4.0 at uni
15:03:08 <sgallagh> Heh, that didn't take much
15:03:18 <tuanta> :)
15:03:29 <nirik> just a short alias away. :)
15:03:36 <adamw> ahoy
15:03:42 <sgallagh> Good morning
15:04:22 <simo> .hello
15:04:23 <zodbot> simo: (hello <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1".
15:04:28 <simo> fail :)
15:04:35 <danofsatx> oh, wait - this is server. I'm here for (limited) participation - it's the cloud meetings I attend as an interested party only ;)
15:05:03 <nirik> simo: irc nick is != fas username always. ;) mine isn't for example, so easy way to get that
15:05:11 <danofsatx> .hello dmossor
15:05:12 <zodbot> danofsatx: dmossor 'Dan Mossor' <danofsatx@gmail.com>
15:06:07 <sgallagh> ok, let's move to the agenda
15:06:12 <sgallagh> #topic Agenda
15:06:22 <sgallagh> I have two (related) items first:
15:06:33 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Fedora 21 Install Media
15:06:33 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Fedora 21 Beta Status
15:06:51 <danofsatx> why did my mind see that as "Beta Sucks"?
15:07:04 <junland> Haha, same here.
15:07:07 <sgallagh> ...
15:07:28 <simo> nirik: well "try" and error out :)
15:07:58 <sgallagh> Anyone have other topics (or specific sub-topics) to add to the agenda?
15:08:12 <davidstrauss> Nope.
15:08:37 <sgallagh> #topic Fedora 21 Install Media
15:09:01 <sgallagh> FESCo is currently deciding on exactly how the network install media is going to function.
15:09:33 <simo> sgallagh: I was puzzled there was an issue there
15:09:36 <simo> what's the issue ?
15:09:36 <sgallagh> We've asserted previously that network install for Server is a primary deliverable. Does anyone wish to challenge this?
15:09:43 <simo> no
15:09:47 <nirik> nope.
15:09:47 <junland> Isn't it just done using PXE?
15:09:49 <sgallagh> simo: I'll get there.
15:09:51 <simo> I think it still is aprimary deliverable
15:10:01 * simo does all his installs using network image
15:10:04 <nirik> but I am perfectly fine with it being a universal one... doesn't need to only show server
15:10:13 <simo> ack
15:10:21 <simo> I also do desktop installs in VM with it
15:10:31 <simo> and it would *suck* to have to dload the DVD instead
15:10:39 <sgallagh> Right, the issue as it stands now is that we cannot realistically have Product-only netinstall media.
15:10:51 <simo> why should it be product only ?
15:10:55 <sgallagh> So FESCo is trying to figure out how best to handle the Server and Workstation ones.
15:11:06 <simo> I would think you select which product at install time with the netinstall
15:11:15 * danofsatx agrees with simo
15:11:29 <sgallagh> simo: Well, at the very least, it seems counterintuitive if I put the Server netinst ISO on a cd, boot it and get prompted to install Fedora Cloud
15:11:39 <sgallagh> (Which is what was happening up until yesterday)
15:11:48 <sgallagh> You could select Server, but it wasn't the default
15:12:06 <nirik> yeah, that part should be fixed now tho (hopefully)
15:12:39 <simo> sgallagh: it wouldn't ask ?
15:12:42 <sgallagh> nirik: I confirmed it with last night's boot.iso
15:12:55 <sgallagh> simo: It doesn't ask, the hub just picks the highest-ranked choice
15:13:06 <simo> oh so you want netinst images that have a different default based on which product page you downloaded them from ?
15:13:08 <sgallagh> Which happened to be Cloud, because it and Server were both ranked as 1 and Cloud sorted first
15:13:17 <sgallagh> simo: Well, that's one approach.
15:13:38 <simo> you need 2 images that are identical except for one line basically ...
15:13:38 <sgallagh> The workaround we currently have is that all netinst.iso's are picking Server by default
15:13:46 <sgallagh> (As of last night)
15:13:49 <simo> that works for me
15:13:50 <nirik> perhaps we should just ask interested folks to chime in on fesco ticket? or do we really want to go over the entire thing here again?
15:14:08 <simo> nirik: from my part now I understand the problem
15:14:26 <simo> and seem clear to me (though I am biased obviously) that Server is the preimary target for netinst
15:14:33 <simo> so defaulting to server makes sense
15:15:00 <adamw> it's fine for me too.
15:15:01 <sgallagh> The only real question I was getting to was whether anyone felt strongly that Server should *not* be the default selection.
15:15:02 <junland> I agree with that too.
15:15:09 <sgallagh> (In favor of Workstation)
15:15:11 <simo> no
15:15:28 * nirik is fine with it too.
15:15:31 <simo> sounds to me Workstation primary install media is the live d
15:15:33 <simo> *cd
15:15:45 <simo> while netinst is more for server oriented people
15:15:48 <nirik> workstation use case is admin installing a bunch of machines, but then they should know how to use ks or adjust the default
15:15:54 <simo> at least that's how I always thought about it
15:16:07 <sgallagh> Yeah, I think the WS group agrees, but I didn't want to be speaking for all of us without discussing it
15:16:11 <simo> well the default is for people "trying out" stuff
15:16:33 <simo> ifd you are doing mass installs you already have to tweak any number of things (packages and what not) so that is not the target
15:16:58 <sgallagh> OK, so for the record:
15:17:29 <sgallagh> Proposal: Server WG recommends that all netinstalls be universal and select Server as the default installation environment in interactive Anaconda.
15:17:43 <nirik> sure. +1
15:18:19 <simo> +1
15:18:27 <tuanta> +1
15:18:39 <davidstrauss> +1
15:18:41 <adamw> +1
15:18:45 <junland> +1
15:19:11 <sgallagh> +1
15:19:11 <adamw> (it occurs to me we could just ditch the 'workstation netinst' entirely and tell workstation people who want a netinst to use the server image, but let's talk about that elsewhere)
15:19:23 <mitr> +1; “finds it quite acceptable that“ would be sufficient I guess, we don't beed to second-guess Workstation that much ☺
15:19:37 <sgallagh> adamw: Well, not exactly; theirs will still get their branding, just a "bug" on the default env.
15:20:18 <sgallagh> mitr: "Server WG finds it acceptable that all netinstalls be universal and select Server as the default installation environment in interactive Anaconda." ?
15:21:02 <mitr> sgallagh: Great.  (The old version is fine enough with me too, hence the +1)
15:21:28 <adamw> ack either way
15:21:43 <sgallagh> #agreed Server WG finds it acceptable that all netinstalls be universal and select Server as the default installation environment in interactive Anaconda. (+8, 0, -0)
15:21:59 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Fedora 21 Beta Status
15:22:21 <sgallagh> Whoops
15:22:22 <sgallagh> #undo
15:22:22 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 15:21:59 : Agenda Item: Fedora 21 Beta Status
15:22:26 <sgallagh> #topic Fedora 21 Beta Status
15:23:01 <sgallagh> OK, so let's figure out if we have everything we need in place for Beta release.
15:23:14 <adamw> unfortunately i still haven't gotten around to writing the test cases for the beta criteria
15:23:18 <adamw> too many things on fire
15:23:22 <adamw> has anyone tested them freestyle?
15:23:44 * nirik hasn't. ;(
15:23:54 <simo> I have been busy lately :(
15:24:00 <sgallagh> Not yet.
15:24:01 <junland> I've only tested Server uptill the selecting the roles on a VM.
15:24:10 <sgallagh> Actually, let's make that the next agenda topic.
15:24:17 <simo> danofsatx: you tested the full DC role install right ?
15:24:25 <sgallagh> I'd like to arrange some testing of the TCs to supplement QA
15:24:52 <sgallagh> adamw: Are you aware of any Server-specific blockers from yesterday's review?
15:25:01 <adamw> no
15:25:03 <junland> I can do some TC's if you give me some document telling me what todo.
15:25:08 <danofsatx> yes, took a few tries, and named kept crashing, but it's running
15:25:25 <adamw> however, the shiny thing I absolutely haven't been working on when I should've been writing the test cases:
15:25:26 <adamw> https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/21/Server.html
15:25:30 <simo> danofsatx: did you send backtraces for named ?
15:25:30 <danofsatx> named is crashing (I think) because the service was never enabled, it was started manually by freeipa.service
15:25:36 <sgallagh> junland: http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_Beta_TC4/Server/
15:25:37 <adamw> tells us that all the server validation tests were last run against Alpha RC1
15:25:52 <adamw> so no-one's run even the tests we have against any Beta compose, yet. that probably needs to happen.
15:25:58 <simo> danofsatx: and why would it crash then ? that's the normal way named is started in an IPA server
15:26:26 * junland opens link
15:26:50 <sgallagh> #info danofsatx has been running tests against the Domain Controller Role. Is encountering an issue with named.
15:27:00 <junland> I take that back, I've only used the Alpha on a VM
15:27:12 <adamw> junland: once you have it, go to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_TC4_Server , run the tests and fill out some results :)
15:27:14 <sgallagh> For the record, I've done at least thirty DC deploys with named working, but they've all been in a KVM guest.
15:27:22 <junland> Thank you.
15:27:23 <adamw> note that with any luck, an RC1 will arrive today.
15:27:37 <simo> danofsatx: where you on baremetal ?
15:27:39 <adamw> sgallagh: testing on a VM is usually fine, and a lot better than a poke in the eye
15:27:40 <sgallagh> #action junland to jump right in with TC testing
15:27:57 <sgallagh> adamw: I meant specifically KVM, whereas I believe danofsatx is using a different hypervisor.
15:28:00 <adamw> ah.
15:28:04 <sgallagh> Just one difference to consider
15:28:32 <adamw> the other thing i've been working on which isn't writing test cases is a TUI for reporting test results, which is something so horribly wrong it's hard to explain, but might save people from figuring out how to edit wiki tables and use the {{result}} template.
15:28:43 <sgallagh> #action danofsatx to file a bug against FreeIPA for the named start failure
15:28:50 <adamw> ANYHOO, yeah, we really need to run those tests against Beta TC4/RC1
15:29:01 <sgallagh> danofsatx: (I hope I'm not being too presumptuous there?)
15:29:23 <sgallagh> #info we really need to run those tests against Beta TC4/RC1
15:29:35 <sgallagh> #link  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_TC4_Server
15:29:52 <adamw> and then check all the stuff in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria#Server_Product_requirements against it too. they're all *relatively* simple and folks shouldn't have too much problem figuring out how to do it without test cases written down. if anything breaks in there, file a blocker bug
15:30:19 <sgallagh> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria#Server_Product_requirements
15:30:24 <adamw> for anyone who doesn't know, you can nominate blocker bugs at https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug , or just mark them as blocking the bug 'BetaBlocker' and explain why in a comment.
15:32:01 <sgallagh> #info for anyone who doesn't know, you can nominate blocker bugs at https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug , or just mark them as blocking the bug 'BetaBlocker' and explain why in a comment.
15:33:24 <sgallagh> OK, so to recap:
15:33:31 <sgallagh> We need testing. Now!
15:33:49 <sgallagh> There are currently no known blockers specifically under this group's jurisdiction
15:34:23 <adamw> yep, that's basically it. i don't know of any 'systemic' issues outstanding aside from netinst; it's all just about testing the bits. Go/No-Go Meeting is Thursday, which means we hopefully don't have any blockers but if there are any we need to know *today* to have any chance of avoiding slippage.
15:34:34 <sgallagh> Well, and the fedup situation
15:34:45 <adamw> which fedup situation? :)
15:34:55 <sgallagh> All the fedup situations :-/
15:35:05 <adamw> eh, those are just blocker bugs to me.
15:35:25 <sgallagh> #info Go/No-Go Meeting is Thursday, which means we hopefully don't have any blockers but if there are any we need to know *today* to have any chance of avoiding slippage.
15:36:03 <sgallagh> #info It would be appreciated if anyone with spare cycles spends some time testing Beta TC4 today.
15:37:04 * junland will do a TC this weekend + homework.
15:37:34 <adamw> by this weekend we'll already have delayed the release or finalized it =) but if we delay, the testing will be handy.
15:37:38 <sgallagh> yes
15:38:34 <junland> Ah so then before Thursday?
15:39:13 <junland> Still trying to learn the lingo here so forgive me you guys.
15:39:19 <sgallagh> junland: No problem
15:39:38 <adamw> junland: ideally, yeah.
15:39:48 <sgallagh> Yes, the Go/No-Go decision has to be made on Thursday, hopefully based on the release candidate build happening tonight (or if needed, the one tomorrow night)
15:39:54 <junland> Alright, Ill be able to fill a TC in then.
15:39:58 <adamw> first rule of fedora, there's never enough time for anything =)
15:40:11 <sgallagh> Thank you!
15:40:16 <junland> Haha. Noted.
15:40:31 <sgallagh> Second rule of Fedora: There's
15:40:57 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
15:41:11 <sgallagh> I have one topic for Open Floor (came up during the meeting)
15:41:56 <sgallagh> We still don't have branding of the GUI installer images working
15:42:12 <sgallagh> adamw: Is branding codified in the release criteria anywhere?
15:42:31 <adamw> yes, but it has not been updated to say anything about products
15:42:47 <adamw> what we have is about correctly identifying the release number and milestone and using the correct artwork for the release
15:43:02 <adamw> i thought it did say Server in the top-right, though?
15:44:50 <sgallagh> Well, we still have the fuzzy placeholder logo on the left
15:45:18 <sgallagh> That's in theory supposed to be replaced by the "correct artwork", with that implicitly meaning the Product's logo
15:45:24 <adamw> oh, that.
15:45:34 <adamw> yeah, not in the criteria (yet)
15:46:34 <sgallagh> #info Product GUI install media still doesn't have the Product Logo
15:46:45 <sgallagh> adamw: Is that in the Beta or Final criteria?
15:47:15 <adamw> the existing branding stuff is mostly final iirc, with a small 'version shouldn't be completety wrong' bit at alpha
15:47:48 <sgallagh> ok, good.
15:47:57 <sgallagh> Then this isn't a potential risk to Beta release.
15:48:12 <adamw> no, i wouldn't say so.
15:48:28 <sgallagh> #info No risk to Beta release due to branding/logo
15:48:38 <sgallagh> Other topics for Open Floor?
15:49:22 <simo> should we have a Server WG test day ?
15:49:59 <sgallagh> Good question
15:50:06 <sgallagh> #topic Server WG Test Day
15:50:20 <sgallagh> Cockpit had a test day already.
15:50:43 <sgallagh> Do we want to schedule something specifically around Server in general or one of our technologies (like rolekit or OpenLMI)?
15:51:11 <adamw> would someone have the cycles to do a proper job of it?
15:52:06 <sgallagh> Good question. I'm not sure I can coordinate this myself. Volunteers? :)
15:52:43 <simo> unfortunately I do not think I would have the time to organize it :(
15:53:46 <adamw> i don't have time to look at the existing test days, let alone run more :/
15:53:53 <sgallagh> I'd like to see rolekit get sufficient testing, but I think that we're probably going to need to be doing this today and tomorrow anyway or else block the release
15:54:06 <sgallagh> So I don't think a test day is necessarily going to help there
15:54:13 <junland> I do but I don't know if it would be "proper".
15:54:22 <sgallagh> proper?
15:54:50 <sgallagh> junland: If you mean "I have time to organize a test day", then congratulations. It's all yours :)
15:55:17 <junland> Haha. So what do I have todo.
15:55:36 <junland> Just give me directions and Ill do my best.
15:55:44 <sgallagh> junland: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create
15:56:03 <sgallagh> Also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days
15:56:22 <sgallagh> Basically, you'd need to put together a test plan and schedule a day.
15:56:47 <sgallagh> If you need help, ask in #fedora-server and someone will try to assist, I'm sure.
15:56:49 * junland having problems with university internet due to something in Dallas...
15:57:03 <junland> Booked marked.
15:57:25 <junland> Two questions.
15:57:26 <sgallagh> #action junland to look into scheduling a Fedora Server Test Day
15:57:32 <danofsatx> sorry folks, $dayjob intervened
15:57:55 <danofsatx> I will attempt to confirm the named bug, and file BZ as needed.
15:58:02 <sgallagh> danofsatx: Would you be willing to assist junland with test cases, since you've already done some testing?
15:58:05 <junland> What is my time frame todo this....
15:58:17 <danofsatx> I can try....
15:58:27 <sgallagh> junland: Please schedule something for before Final Freeze
15:58:37 <junland> Will do.
15:58:40 <sgallagh> Which is 2014-11-18
15:58:51 <junland> I will try to get one of my classmates to help me out.
15:58:53 <sgallagh> danofsatx: Thanks
15:58:59 <sgallagh> The more, the merrier
15:59:04 * danofsatx scrolls back
15:59:24 <sgallagh> OK, anything further on this topic?
15:59:42 <sgallagh> We're at the top of the hour, so I'll close out the meeting in two minutes unless there's something further.
15:59:52 * adamw has nothing
16:00:09 * junland has nothing as well.
16:00:54 * tuanta has nothing. just started another meeting
16:02:15 <sgallagh> Thanks for coming, folks
16:02:18 <sgallagh> #endmeeting