20:00:43 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2017-07-25)
20:00:43 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jul 25 20:00:43 2017 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:43 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:43 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'server_working_group_weekly_meeting_(2017-07-25)'
20:00:43 <sgallagh> #chair nirik sgallagh mhayden dperpeet smooge jds2001 vvaldez adamw mjwolf
20:00:43 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw dperpeet jds2001 mhayden mjwolf nirik sgallagh smooge vvaldez
20:00:43 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
20:00:52 <jds2001> .hello jstanley
20:00:53 <zodbot> jds2001: jstanley 'Jon Stanley' <jonstanley@gmail.com>
20:00:54 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
20:00:56 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
20:00:56 <adamw> .hello adamwill
20:00:58 <mhayden> .hello mhayden
20:00:59 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com>
20:01:01 <dperpeet> .hello dperpeet
20:01:02 <zodbot> mhayden: mhayden 'Major Hayden' <major@mhtx.net>
20:01:03 <adamw> i'm sorta here, but have to go to the dentist in 10 mins.
20:01:05 <zodbot> dperpeet: dperpeet 'None' <dperpeet@redhat.com>
20:01:07 <langdon> .hello langdon
20:01:08 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
20:01:12 * langdon hopes he is in the right place
20:01:18 <langdon> still reading topic
20:01:31 <sgallagh> adamw: Server SIG meetings probably are more tolerable on nitrous oxide!
20:01:38 <jds2001> langdon: you are :)
20:01:45 <langdon> woot! go me!
20:02:10 <sgallagh> OK, looks like we've got enough people to start
20:02:14 <smooge> here
20:02:14 <sgallagh> #topic Agenda
20:02:18 <sgallagh> Why are we here today?
20:02:38 <smooge> to inhale nitrous oxide?
20:02:55 <sgallagh> So, F26 is out the door and F27 is dangerously close.
20:03:00 <dperpeet> I also have a 2 min Cockpit topic - how to get started with a plugin
20:03:02 <langdon> smooge, i have had enough of that.. root canal couple weeks ago :/
20:03:04 <jds2001> we're here to talk about boltron! :)
20:03:05 <sgallagh> smooge: Did you bring enough to share with the class?
20:03:19 <jds2001> langdon: i wish my dentist gave me that.
20:03:28 <jds2001> she just gives me some injections of stuff.
20:03:38 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Roger that.
20:03:42 <langdon> jds2001, ha.. i am not sure any of them do.. it was really just novacaine :(
20:03:57 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Cockpit - How to get started with a plugin
20:04:11 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Boltron and conquering the universe
20:04:43 <sgallagh> Anything else?
20:05:00 <sgallagh> OK, dperpeet promises that it will be a short topic, so lets start with his.
20:05:07 <sgallagh> #topic Cockpit - How to get started with a plugin
20:05:11 <dperpeet> so, with Cockpit it's logical that many plugins don't want to and shouldn't have to be in the cockpit main repo
20:05:12 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Take it away
20:05:14 <dperpeet> thanks
20:05:27 <dperpeet> so I've been working a bit on a demo for this
20:05:29 <dperpeet> https://github.com/cockpit-project/subscription-manager
20:05:48 <dperpeet> and today's pull request should go in soon https://github.com/cockpit-project/subscription-manager/pull/5
20:05:58 <dperpeet> with that you can pull in whatever js you wish
20:06:05 <dperpeet> "make rpm" or "make srpm"
20:06:15 <dperpeet> make install for developer build
20:06:18 <dperpeet> all the niceties
20:06:23 <dperpeet> or even webpack --watch
20:06:28 <dperpeet> and just refresh the browser with cockpit
20:06:37 <dperpeet> should work with cockpit in fedora out of the box
20:06:54 <dperpeet> there's even vagrant
20:06:56 <sgallagh> dperpeet: So the intention is that subsystems would ship a cockpit module inside their own projects rather than submitting them to Cockpit upstream?
20:07:00 <dperpeet> yup
20:07:02 <dperpeet> exactly
20:07:08 <dperpeet> and not worry about building cockpit
20:07:28 <sgallagh> #info Cockpit plugins for everyone!
20:07:28 <dperpeet> I'm also adding some testing
20:07:30 <langdon> dperpeet, nice!
20:07:42 <dperpeet> and I did this without the autotools "magic" :)
20:07:54 <sgallagh> #info Cockpit can now handle out-of-tree plugins without needing to build Cockpit itself
20:08:07 <dperpeet> well, technically that's not new
20:08:10 <sgallagh> #info Subsystems are encouraged to distribute and maintain their own Cockpit plugins
20:08:18 <dperpeet> but a simple repo to clone is a lot nicer :)
20:08:39 <dperpeet> I'll have more next meeting, probably
20:08:45 <sgallagh> dperpeet++
20:08:45 <zodbot> sgallagh: Karma for dperpeet changed to 1 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
20:08:46 <dperpeet> feel free to poke holes into what I did there
20:08:57 <dperpeet> thanks :)
20:09:13 <sgallagh> Questions for dperpeet?
20:09:22 <jds2001> nice work! :)
20:09:29 <langdon> dperpeet, will there be an "independent" repo i woul dclone?
20:09:38 <langdon> like a "starter"?
20:09:45 * langdon may have missed that
20:09:47 <dperpeet> langdon, that's what this repo is meant to me
20:09:48 <dperpeet> to be
20:10:12 <dperpeet> we're working on putting the "convenience" react components into their on npm repo
20:10:17 <dperpeet> *their own
20:10:19 <langdon> ahh ok.. gotcha
20:10:22 * jds2001 guesses s-m is the simplest useful plugin one can have?
20:10:41 <dperpeet> well, this was started out with the intent of moving subscriptions out of the cockpit tree
20:10:53 <dperpeet> but now I've shared the link already and don't want to rename it
20:11:03 <dperpeet> I may start a fresh one and call it starter kit
20:11:05 <jds2001> hehe :)
20:11:07 <dperpeet> but this is what you'll get
20:11:12 <langdon> dperpeet +1
20:11:12 <sgallagh> dperpeet: A starter kit would be ideal
20:11:17 <dperpeet> thanks for reminding me :)
20:11:25 <dperpeet> you can treat the content as said starter kit
20:11:29 <dperpeet> or the beginnings thereof
20:11:38 <dperpeet> it doesn't require the cockpit source tree at all
20:11:47 <sgallagh> jds2001: I'd think the simplest example would be something like "Set SELinux to enforcing, permissive or MakeDanWalshCry"
20:11:58 <mhayden> haha
20:11:58 <dperpeet> sgallagh++
20:11:58 <zodbot> dperpeet: Karma for sgallagh changed to 3 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
20:12:01 <dperpeet> I'll do that
20:12:04 <mhayden> sgallagh++
20:12:04 <zodbot> mhayden: Karma for sgallagh changed to 4 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
20:12:10 <jds2001> MakeMajorCry :D
20:12:30 <adamw> sgallagh: wait, permissive and MakeDanWalshCry are the same, aren't they?
20:12:33 <dperpeet> it's actually a good example for many reasons
20:12:36 <mhayden> i deal with openstack frequently, so i know how to cry
20:12:37 <dperpeet> :)
20:13:12 <sgallagh> Actually, I'd love to see a Cockpit plugin with a setting for "switch to permissive for N minutes" :)
20:13:25 <sgallagh> So it would fix your system if you forgot to set it back :-D
20:13:30 <dperpeet> sgallagh, I thought about that, but I think I should reply in a breakout meeting
20:13:31 <dperpeet> :)
20:13:34 <sgallagh> OK
20:13:35 <langdon> sgallagh, +1 ... i do that too
20:13:57 <dperpeet> I'll also add simple CI
20:14:03 <dperpeet> with semaphore or some such
20:14:12 <dperpeet> so expect that to be part of the starter kit
20:14:21 <dperpeet> (not the full vm stuff cockpit has)
20:14:25 <sgallagh> #info dperpeet will work on a simple example, possibly using SELinux enforcing/permissive as the demonstration.
20:15:36 <sgallagh> OK, anything else on this topic?
20:15:41 <dperpeet> not from me, thank you
20:15:54 * sgallagh notes that this will be great for modularity as well
20:16:07 <sgallagh> If we can ship the cockpit plugins with the associated module, that will make life easier.
20:16:15 <dperpeet> for everyone :)
20:16:17 <sgallagh> yes
20:16:40 <dperpeet> we don't promote the "Cockpit" brand within Cockpit for a reason
20:16:48 <sgallagh> #topic Boltron and conquering the universe
20:17:18 <langdon> right
20:17:59 <sgallagh> langdon: Do you want to start here, or should I?
20:18:33 <langdon> sgallagh, oh.. i thought you would.. thought you were typing a lot :/
20:18:40 <sgallagh> No problem.
20:18:42 <langdon> i can if you like.. but i think you know the goal you wanted to achieve better than i do
20:19:02 <sgallagh> So, in previous meetings, we've expressed some general goals for F27.
20:19:18 <sgallagh> I'd like to try to dive in and figure out what *exactly* we need to do to reach those goals.
20:19:47 <sgallagh> The biggest (and most difficult) one to achieve will be our plan to deliver a complete Fedora Server Edition built from modules.
20:19:52 * langdon tried to start an etherpad for this but none seem to actually be up anymore
20:20:08 <sgallagh> Boltron provided us a framework and much of the necessary build/compose tooling.
20:20:09 <adamw> sorry to run, folks, have to go to the dentist
20:20:22 <sgallagh> So the next big piece we'll need to discuss is the content.
20:21:02 <sgallagh> In particular, we may need to make some hard decisions regarding what pieces of the current Server Edition we want to maintain as release-blocking.
20:21:19 <jds2001> what content do we need to be considered "complete"?
20:21:27 <sgallagh> jds2001: That would be the big question, yes.
20:21:47 <sgallagh> The "easy" answer is "modules must provide all packages currently on the DVD"
20:22:12 * jds2001 thinks that is probably not realistic :(
20:22:14 <sgallagh> (modulo any packages dropped or replaced in the normal order of things)
20:23:28 <sgallagh> jds2001: Well, carrying all of the packages isn't terribly hard.
20:23:37 <sgallagh> But dividing them up into meaningful modules may be
20:23:56 <sgallagh> Particularly if we want to take advantage of any of the advanced features that modules give us, such as profiles.
20:24:07 <sgallagh> langdon: Do you want to go into detail on profiles?
20:24:18 <langdon> i heard you highlight cockpit, postgres, and freeipa
20:24:33 <langdon> those are "must haves" ..
20:24:38 * sgallagh nods
20:26:12 <langdon> but there are a bunch of things that no one ever thinks of that we forgot for boltron.. e.g. cloud-init, sudo, network-manager, less, vi, nano ..
20:26:12 <langdon> i think it will help because we plan to start having daily composes (perhaps this week)
20:26:12 <langdon> of "f27-boltron-server" or whatever
20:26:12 * langdon notes we didn't get real "base runtimes" until ~3 weeks ago
20:26:13 <langdon> so.. sgallagh what's next? what do we want to decide here?
20:26:14 <langdon> also, i have been playing with https://pagure.io/modularity/test-for-module-layout/blob/master/f/graphing.dot as a way to document the content..
20:26:27 <sgallagh> Sorry, my client briefly disconnected.
20:26:30 <sgallagh> I'm back
20:27:02 <sgallagh> OK
20:27:15 <sgallagh> So those aren't really "forgotten" from the Server Edition
20:27:30 <sgallagh> We actually have a document and release criteria requiring some of those to work
20:27:40 <langdon> woah.. it certainly did
20:27:44 <sgallagh> But you're right, those are "cost of doing business"
20:27:57 * langdon reads, sorry
20:28:15 <sgallagh> Whereas Cockpit, PostgreSQL and FreeIPA are the highlights we show off
20:28:29 <langdon> right
20:28:36 <sgallagh> because they're both exciting and polished
20:28:53 <langdon> and.. that was adamw's proposal was to modify the release crit to be "module aware" .. and i liked that idea
20:29:11 <sgallagh> langdon: Sorry, could you recount that?
20:29:25 * langdon thinks
20:29:43 <smooge> ok for questions?
20:29:52 <langdon> fine with me
20:30:03 <smooge> why was less and sudo modules?
20:30:27 <langdon> smooge, yeah.. not .. systemtools {less, nano, other stuff}
20:30:30 <langdon> sorry
20:30:46 <smooge> ok I was worried we were going to bolt bolts
20:30:50 <langdon> so.. adam's idea was adapt https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Final_Release_Criteria for f27 to be "modules"
20:31:05 <langdon> smooge, modules == rpms is dumb ;)
20:31:09 <sgallagh> langdon: What does that mean, though?
20:31:15 <langdon> ohh
20:31:48 <langdon> well.. i was thinking that we would follow the same proof points .. adapting commands and tests to use the modular version of them..
20:32:00 * langdon isn't sure  the doc really needs changing all that much
20:32:48 <sgallagh> Right, the doc is user-facing
20:33:04 <langdon> i guess i assumed there were automatic tests that accounted for these.. and they would, at the very least, need adapting
20:33:07 <sgallagh> "These things must work" rather than "These things must work in this way"
20:33:16 <sgallagh> Yes, the automated tests are a different story
20:33:44 <langdon> and changing things like "A bug in a Critical Path package that: " -> "A bug in a Critical Path module or package that: " or some such
20:34:04 <dperpeet> shouldn't the "module stories" go hand in hand with tests?
20:34:08 <sgallagh> langdon: I think that may be getting into the weeds
20:34:28 <dperpeet> if stuff belongs together, it makes sense to have stories
20:34:31 <dperpeet> and those can be tested
20:34:55 <sgallagh> Particularly when we haven't answered (in my mind) some of the big questions
20:35:02 <dperpeet> if they can't, then that's a good indicator to question whether the bits and pieces belong together :)
20:35:14 <sgallagh> Like: can we discontinue the non-modular release in F27 (or: what do we need to achieve before we can?)
20:35:21 <langdon> dperpeet, yeah... the module-test-framework (which now has a different name) is hoping to use behave for more of our tests
20:36:05 <langdon> sgallagh, ahh.. so perhaps a smaller version of the release-crit that decides if modular-server is "good enough" for replacement of traditional-server?
20:36:27 * sgallagh nods
20:36:56 <langdon> i think that approach.. preferably with behave tests would be awesome..
20:36:57 <sgallagh> Or else a decision that we don't *replace* until we hit 100% of the release criteria
20:37:29 <langdon> that i can't decide.. but obviously, i am biased towards a good enough version ;)
20:39:03 <jds2001> its not like we're taking away anything
20:39:16 <sgallagh> jds2001: Well, that's actually not true.
20:39:19 <jds2001> if folks really want the old thing, there's the netinstall.
20:39:28 <sgallagh> Ah, that's what you meant
20:39:30 <sgallagh> True.
20:39:53 <sgallagh> Likely that's where we will have to send upgrades from F26 as well; keep them on the traditional lines for now.
20:40:11 <sgallagh> But there's a valid question to be made about new installs:
20:40:11 <langdon> we also don't have to decide today or even soon.. it isn't like we are deleting the traditional build infra.. i would assume we would "build both" and, in my opinion, just ship modular-server
20:40:11 <langdon> assuming there isn't a whole lot of "extra" effort in making the traditional distro go
20:40:11 <langdon> sgallagh, almost definitely
20:40:31 <sgallagh> Is it okay for our install media to have less functionality in F27 than in F26?
20:40:39 <langdon> i actually think jds2001's comment is what mattdm suggested as well (might even be in the change ;) )
20:40:48 <sgallagh> And if so, which functionality can be sacrificed?
20:42:07 <jds2001> that's the hard question :)
20:42:20 <sgallagh> I'm good at asking those... bad at answering them
20:42:42 <sgallagh> I have considerable concern about our ability to modularize FreeIPA in the F27 time-frame
20:42:49 <sgallagh> But it's a significant piece of our story.
20:43:15 <smooge> If we can't have a major spin with less functionality.. how hard would it be able to do a 'spin/remix' which allowed us to play with things
20:43:34 <langdon> sgallagh, really? do you think it is that hard? i mean there is a decent metapackage, right? can't we just depchase it down?
20:43:37 <sgallagh> smooge: We just did that?
20:44:00 <sgallagh> langdon: The problem isn't figuring out what it needs.
20:44:14 <sgallagh> The problem is breaking it up the right way, because it consumes and provides a LOT of stuff.
20:44:30 <dperpeet> I think in any case there should be a transitional period with both
20:44:34 <sgallagh> Kerberos KDC, Kerberos client libraries, 389DS, BIND DNS...
20:44:41 <langdon> sgallagh, well.. a good answer or even ok answer can be for f27... we can fix it over time
20:44:44 <dperpeet> since the Fedora releases aren't *that* rare
20:45:16 <jds2001> stupid question: can a package belong to multiple modules?
20:45:19 <sgallagh> langdon: If you want to commit the modularity WG to providing the modules, I'm good with that.
20:45:25 <jds2001> i.e. freeipa and dns-server for BIND?
20:45:28 <dperpeet> we can set minimal criteria to deprecate the traditional stuff, but keep it for one release
20:45:34 <langdon> lol
20:45:54 <sgallagh> jds2001: It's not good if it is. We're still working out how to deal with relocation for conflicting dependencies.
20:46:57 <jds2001> boo. the "easy" solution would be to lump everything into freeipa
20:47:09 <langdon> i also would like dnf to be smarter about non-conflicting but the same deps.. so bind can be in both as lng as they are in the same version .. until we get better conflicting deps solutions
20:47:15 <sgallagh> jds2001: Yes, but IIRC we already have some of those pieces separately
20:47:17 <jds2001> but that isn't that great for folks that want the pieces separately
20:47:49 <sgallagh> langdon: Remind me where the list of Boltron modules is?
20:48:43 <langdon> https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/prototype/boltron/content.html
20:48:58 <langdon> sorry.. super slow today
20:49:33 <langdon> jds2001, that's the dream.. but i don't think we will be there for f27 or f28..
20:50:35 <sgallagh> OK, so here's a proposal: F27 is good as long as the FreeIPA module exists. We are okay if it is much larger than it "should" be for this pass.
20:50:54 <sgallagh> Meaning we won't make any exceptional effort to separate out Dogtag, 389, etc.
20:51:12 <langdon> sgallagh, yeah.. i just need to get the freeipa folks to agree.. but i think they have already been experimenting
20:51:35 <sgallagh> langdon: Are you willing to commit to having *something* out of the Modularity WG for FreeIPA by F27 beta?
20:51:45 * sgallagh notes that this is *five weeks away*  by the current schedule
20:51:54 <langdon> sgallagh, probably? but i can't during this meeting..
20:52:21 <sgallagh> #action langdon to get confirmation that FreeIPA will have a module for F27
20:52:27 <jds2001> you need to promise the world NOW! :D
20:52:34 <langdon> lol
20:52:54 <langdon> ill just do it.. cause you know.. i have plenty of time.. and deeply understand freeipa /s
20:53:17 <jds2001> lol
20:53:48 <sgallagh> langdon: FYI, I'm available as a resource... I just can't commit to being the sole person responsible for that.
20:53:57 <sgallagh> s/can't/won't/
20:54:28 <langdon> sgallagh, ohh totally.. and like i said.. i think we want the rest of the team responsible involved.. and, i have discussed it with them a bit before.. we just need to get to a commitment
20:54:38 <sgallagh> ok
20:55:03 <sgallagh> OK, I'm going to make a proposal for our goals for F27:
20:56:01 <sgallagh> Proposal: Fedora 27 will ship only the modular version of Server Edition as long as it contains modules that include FreeIPA (for both master and replica), PostgreSQL, Cockpit, Network Manager and storaged.
20:56:05 * nirik arrives late...
20:56:28 <langdon> "contains, at least, modules" ??
20:56:32 <sgallagh> s/storaged/udisks2/
20:56:43 <sgallagh> langdon: I thought that was implicit
20:56:57 <nirik> they keep renaming them so much the names should be interchangeable now. ;)
20:56:58 <jds2001> if it contains more, great!
20:57:00 <langdon> and/or a new release-crit will be developed that details the content expected?
20:57:15 <langdon> blivet!
20:57:20 <dperpeet> is Cockpit its own module?
20:57:32 <dperpeet> no wait, I read that wrong (I hope)
20:57:47 <sgallagh> dperpeet: I specified "modules that include" so we don't have to define that here :)
20:57:47 <langdon> dperpeet, i would imagine, yes.. with plugins landing in their own modules
20:57:51 <dperpeet> "modules that include..." is generic enough for me :)
20:57:54 <jds2001> dperpeet: why wouldnt it be its own moduke?
20:58:10 <sgallagh> But likely the infrastructure bits for Cockpit would be their own module
20:58:17 <dperpeet> could be
20:58:33 <dperpeet> modules don't have to be large :)
20:58:45 * jds2001 is +1 to sgallagh's proposal
20:58:58 <dperpeet> +1
20:59:03 * nirik can be +1 to that too.
20:59:19 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Well, the module wouldn't necessarily *just* be the cockpit packages. It might also be any deps that Cockpit needs that aren't a good fit elsewhere.
20:59:36 <sgallagh> I'm +1 to my proposal, for the record
20:59:46 <dperpeet> sgallagh, could be... I think that's a separate discussion though :)
20:59:48 <langdon> dperpeet, i am actually starting to see cockpit as so integral that it might just be part of platform.. much like a container-runtime..
21:00:06 <sgallagh> langdon: I could be on board with that as well
21:00:24 <sgallagh> It's a mandatory part of the Server Edition install today.
21:00:27 <langdon> *especially* if the plugins are separate and in their "host" modules
21:01:28 * sgallagh nods
21:01:39 <jds2001> does being in platform mean its on other editions as well?
21:01:45 <sgallagh> smooge: Any thoughts?
21:01:53 <sgallagh> jds2001: Long-term, yes.
21:01:58 <jds2001> for instance workstation where it might not fit?
21:02:03 <sgallagh> jds2001: Short-term, Server is the guinea pig
21:02:03 <langdon> jds2001, not at this point.. but, ultimately yes.. and "available" not "installed by default"
21:02:18 <jds2001> ok, makes sense.
21:02:20 <smooge> I am +0 for this
21:02:36 <sgallagh> jds2001: For a lot of what Cockpit does, I'd actually rather see Workstation just pull up a browser window rather than have every DE reimplement it :-/
21:03:04 <sgallagh> smooge: What are your reservations?
21:03:07 <jds2001> yeah :/
21:03:14 <dperpeet> I think the core parts of cockpit could be present everywhere
21:03:19 <dperpeet> very small footprint
21:03:31 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Yeah, I don't think there would be much (any) problem with that.
21:03:37 <dperpeet> we've also discussed getting rid of glib-networking dep for example
21:03:47 <dperpeet> make it even smaller
21:04:00 <smooge> My reservation is that I haven't actually run the modules or seen how a sysadmin updates them or how infrastructure will keep up with them
21:04:17 <smooge> but I am not -1 on it. I just don't feel I have done enough to be +1
21:04:20 * sgallagh nods
21:04:42 <sgallagh> langdon: Do I recall that you have a video recording answering some of those questions?
21:04:50 <sgallagh> Probably worth linking here.
21:04:56 * langdon thinks
21:05:11 <langdon> end-user? yes.. not the "how infra keeps up" though
21:05:20 * langdon digs again
21:05:30 <smooge> I will need to take some time and run through the commands and see what it actually means by "we only will ship modules" and how that looks on the ftp server
21:05:45 <sgallagh> "the ftp server"?
21:05:51 <smooge> http/rsync
21:05:56 <smooge> I am old
21:06:44 <smooge> and I have been staring at the partition today which is still called fedora_ftp on the Red Hat
21:06:46 <langdon> i highly recommend trying the walkthrough: http://bit.ly/mod-walkthrough
21:07:27 <smooge> will do so this evening after I finish moving furniture
21:07:36 <langdon> but the video of it is: /me still digging
21:07:59 <langdon> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSySSfN40yE
21:08:34 <langdon> although, technically, that video is from the pre-release... but it should be 99% the same
21:08:43 <sgallagh> #link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSySSfN40yE
21:09:39 <sgallagh> Alright, we are over time.
21:09:55 <sgallagh> Let's all take some time to play around with Boltron until next week and revisit this then?
21:10:04 <langdon> sgallagh, can you link the walkthrouhg too/
21:10:05 <langdon> ?
21:10:09 <sgallagh> Oh, right
21:10:13 <langdon> thanks..
21:10:17 <sgallagh> #link http://bit.ly/mod-walkthrough
21:10:17 <jds2001> sounds good to me.....
21:10:41 <sgallagh> #info Please have a look at the modularity walkthrough. We will revisit this topic next week.
21:11:17 <langdon> thanks all
21:11:30 <sgallagh> Thank you for coming!
21:11:36 <sgallagh> #endmeeting