21:03:08 #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2016-11-29) 21:03:08 Meeting started Tue Nov 29 21:03:08 2016 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:03:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 21:03:08 The meeting name has been set to 'server_working_group_weekly_meeting_(2016-11-29)' 21:03:09 #chair nirik sgallagh mhayden dperpeet smooge jds2001 vvaldez adamw mjwolf 21:03:09 Current chairs: adamw dperpeet jds2001 mhayden mjwolf nirik sgallagh smooge vvaldez 21:03:10 #topic roll call 21:03:11 .hello sgallagh 21:03:12 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 21:03:12 Does anyone see my messages? 21:03:15 .hello dustymabe 21:03:16 dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' 21:03:18 .hello vvaldez 21:03:19 vvaldez: vvaldez 'Vinny Valdez' 21:03:21 .hello mjwolf 21:03:22 yes 21:03:25 mjwolf: mjwolf 'Michael Wolf' 21:03:26 .hello smooge 21:03:28 smooge: smooge 'Stephen J Smoogen' 21:03:29 IRC is being finnicky for me today, sorry. 21:03:29 sgallagh: ack 21:03:31 .hello mhayden 21:03:32 mhayden: mhayden 'Major Hayden' 21:03:42 hey sgallagh, i'm here but in another video meeting right now 21:03:47 I started the meeting several minutes ago, then discovered I had dropped 21:03:50 hopefully will be able to contribute 21:04:07 .hello adamwill 21:04:09 adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' 21:04:16 i'm seeing ya, sgallagh 21:04:41 Thanks, disconnecting and reconnecting to my bouncer seems to have addressed it 21:05:44 #topic Agenda 21:06:12 I don't have an agenda today. Still digesting Thanksgiving turkey. 21:06:47 Thanks to everyone who participated in getting Fedora Server 25 out the door. 21:06:50 /me applauds 21:07:31 * smooge gives virtual virtual cookies to everyone for their work 21:08:05 * adamw has updated all his personal servers and the openQA staging instance to f25 21:08:06 So that's it, we're done, right? Wait, what do you mean we have to work on Fedora Server 26 now? 21:08:23 haha, wooo 21:08:34 adamw++ 21:08:35 sgallagh: Karma for adamwill changed to 5 (for the f25 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 21:08:47 we're fixing some cases where selinux is denying postfix and spamd operations, that's likely to affect quite a few people 21:08:52 no we are going to skip Fedora 26.. let Fedora 25 age like a fine wine 21:09:01 .hello jstanley 21:09:02 jds2001: jstanley 'Jon Stanley' 21:09:05 smooge++ 21:09:05 mhayden: Karma for smooge changed to 3 (for the f25 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 21:09:11 I'm pretty sure we can't get away with thta. 21:09:11 there is also an issue where the default PHP config now generates a ton of AVCs due to PCRE JIT compilation doing execmem operations 21:09:24 Also, every time I've tried to age wine, I got expensive vinegar for my troubles 21:09:38 that one kinda needs help from upstream pcre to really be fixed. details on commonbugs page 21:10:11 #info Fedora Server 25 is released! Gratitude all around 21:10:28 #info Some late-breaking SELinux issues have cropped up and need to be looked into 21:10:48 #undo 21:10:48 Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 21:10:28 : Some late-breaking SELinux issues have cropped up and need to be looked into 21:10:49 #undo 21:10:49 Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 21:10:11 : Fedora Server 25 is released! Gratitude all around 21:10:52 well, they're pretty much looked into, updates are submitted. 21:11:00 #topic Fedora 25 Release 21:11:02 #info Fedora Server 25 is released! Gratitude all around 21:11:04 #info Some late-breaking SELinux issues have cropped up and need to be looked into 21:11:08 * nirik is sort of here now 21:11:11 adamw: OK, good to know 21:11:34 * dperpeet is here now 21:11:43 OK, let's talk a little about F26. 21:11:51 #topic Fedora 26 Planning 21:12:23 We've made some good progress on organizing our thoughts here, but we (read: I) stalled out on the requirements we were trying to write up. 21:12:40 We also need to finish the discussion on role design. 21:12:58 (Neither of these things should happen in this meeting today, as no one is likely prepared) 21:13:06 ah yes sgallagh, I owe respnses to your comments 21:13:40 I have a comment on the roles 21:13:49 #topic Role Design 21:13:53 dperpeet: You have the floor 21:14:19 I have a feeling that part of these "roles" is still a bit nebulous 21:14:28 i.e. how will this all work in the end 21:14:58 dperpeet: That's kind of why I asked the coordinators to write up a set of use-cases and high-level requirements for discussion 21:14:59 looking at what we want to achieve, I feel like we should pick one and try to implement it as far as possible 21:15:12 the Cockpit team feels like NFS is a good candidate for this 21:15:41 dperpeet: Please be more specific. NFS Server? 21:15:46 right 21:15:52 Sounds good to me. 21:15:56 the document has received some attention 21:15:57 * jds2001 too 21:16:02 and we feel that we can move forward with that 21:16:16 and treat this as a case study of how to make it work in Cockpit 21:16:48 so we'll design a bit 21:16:53 or rather, andreasn will :) 21:17:19 and I'll post an update on the mailing list once there is something tangible 21:17:22 and we can iterate from there 21:17:32 That would be really excellent, indeed. 21:17:33 I'm sure we'll identify issues we haven't thought of yet 21:17:54 especially how to choose a role 21:17:56 et cetera 21:18:17 dperpeet: That's great from a user perspective, and we should absolutely do that as soon as we can. 21:18:27 Some of the open questions we still have are backend implementation questions. 21:18:27 agreed, so effort there has begun 21:18:56 I'm hopeful to have some design to discuss in 2016 still 21:19:00 We've basically settled on using ansible as a means to fire off the deployments, but there's plenty that's ambiguous about how we're doing it under the hood. 21:19:12 or the end of the next (not this) sprint, if you're following the Cockpit schedule 21:19:16 Will all deployments be in containers? All on bare metal? A mixture? 21:19:38 right, but I think for Cockpit we want to look at the other side: UX 21:19:57 how we drive that under the hood is almost secondary, I think at this point 21:20:13 dperpeet: Not secondary, but parallel 21:20:21 fair enough 21:20:34 But it has to be considered in terms of how we're going to handle scaling our deployments. 21:20:47 right, but for a user it should "just work" 21:20:51 NFS is kind of an edge case in this situation. 21:20:55 or at least guide the user through the necessary steps 21:21:12 Because you *probably* aren't going to be doing NFS as a microservice. 21:21:19 might be, but I feel it's fairly easy to get a working prototype 21:21:38 and once we have user interaction, we can refine the actual behavior/content 21:21:43 dperpeet: Sure, but I don't want us to build a prototype we can't use as a framework to build further roles either 21:22:06 Right, I'm not disagreeing with you. 21:22:28 ok, I'll make sure we pause after the first design stage 21:22:50 then we'll want all role coordinators to think if what is presented can work for their roles 21:23:07 dperpeet: And the UI *may* be limited in what we can do with the tech under the hood too. 21:23:25 For example, iterative interaction may be impossible if our selected tool is declarative. 21:23:29 I'm fairly certain it will be 21:23:39 we don't want to project all capabilities into the GUI 21:23:56 dperpeet: I think you read that backwards. 21:24:17 I'm saying that things like "we will use ansible as our deployment tool" implies certain limitations on how one can design the UX. 21:24:26 Like it means that all information has to be provided up-front. 21:24:26 hm 21:24:31 true 21:24:56 That doesn't mean that the UI cannot be iterative, but it can't effect any changes in the middle. 21:25:01 I'll make sure this is considered 21:25:56 On the other hand, maybe it's best if you have andreasn just do an idealized design and then we can do a second iteration taking into account tech limitations 21:26:03 (sorry, thinking as I type) 21:26:31 in the first stage we usually take tech limits into account, but not necessarily as hard constraints 21:26:32 If the UI tradeoff is harsh enough, it might drive a change in implementation 21:26:36 exactly 21:27:00 that said, once we have something, we'll need feedback to keep momentum 21:27:07 dperpeet: Agreed 21:27:34 jds2001: Could you pretty-up and provide your set of use-cases and requirements to the cockpit team? 21:28:00 sgallagh: yeah, how should I do that? 21:28:03 And since you're acting as coordinator here, I'd like to nominate you for carrying the ball here and making sure that any questions are asked broadly enough? 21:28:05 what's there looks good, but I think it's important to make sure that the use cases are well-rounded 21:28:16 sgallagh: do i need to fill out a template in triplicate :) 21:28:23 jds2001, make sure no important use cases are missing :) 21:28:36 dperpeet: Right, perhaps that would be worth doing iteratively between you, andreasn and jds2001 21:28:48 certainly 21:28:57 Perhaps with adamw's expertise in catching cases we might not consider. 21:29:05 (if he's willing) 21:29:13 jds2001, what you can do right away is make sure the use cases cover what we need 21:29:41 jds2001, then once we have a design, you can look over that and see if we interpreted anything wrong :) 21:29:44 dperpeet: certainly 21:30:06 jds2001, thanks! 21:30:52 OK, so in order to keep the momentum on this, shall we set a check-in point? 21:31:25 sgallagh, end of next Cockpit sprint: Dec 13 21:31:38 we have a meeting on that day 21:31:42 "at" or "by"? 21:31:49 Or "on"? 21:31:50 :) 21:31:52 on 21:32:05 let's add it to the agenda that day 21:32:09 I'd prefer to see some discussion before that, at least a use-case review 21:32:21 Could we aim to have that done sooner? 21:32:48 sounds good, but I wouldn't want to promise a certain date 21:32:48 That way your next sprint has that as input data? 21:33:43 yeah 21:33:56 jds2001: I'm going to leave it to your best judgement how to handle that. 21:34:12 sgallagh, andreas has work on this scheduled for this sprint 21:34:22 ok 21:34:30 jds2001, https://trello.com/c/00TuMHlI/414-design-nfs-server-configuration 21:34:51 I haven't added the doc link there yet 21:35:07 but as stuff happens, it'll show up there 21:35:31 dperpeet: OK, I interpreted your earlier statements as being "we plan to start looking at the design on Dec. 13" 21:35:40 If that's already on the queue, then great! 21:36:01 I'm hoping we have some design ideas by dec 13th 21:36:55 #action dperpeet and jds2001 will discuss UX design for NFS role with Cockpit designers 21:37:24 #info Server SIG will have a check-in on NFS server on Dec. 13th after the Cockpit sprint planning 21:38:41 Anything else on the roles topic? 21:38:57 not from me, thanks 21:39:15 not today 21:39:50 vvaldez: Sometime before the winter holidays, we should sit down and discuss the domain controller. 21:40:06 #topic Open Floor 21:40:11 sgallagh: agree 21:40:52 Anything for Open Floor today? 21:40:58 Otherwise, we'll make it a short meeting. 21:43:36 OK, a short meeting it is, then. 21:43:40 Thanks for coming, folks. 21:43:43 #endmeeting