17:02:53 #startmeeting atomic_wg 17:02:53 Meeting started Wed Oct 25 17:02:53 2017 UTC. The chair is jberkus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:02:53 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:02:53 The meeting name has been set to 'atomic_wg' 17:03:04 #topic roll call 17:03:07 .hello dustymabe 17:03:08 dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' 17:03:09 .hello jberkus 17:03:09 .hello davdunc 17:03:12 jberkus: jberkus 'Josh Berkus' 17:03:13 .hello strigazi 17:03:15 davdunc: davdunc 'David Duncan' 17:03:16 .hello sinnykumari 17:03:17 strigazi: strigazi 'Spyros Trigazis' 17:03:20 ksinny: sinnykumari 'Sinny Kumari' 17:03:20 strigazi: \o/ 17:03:25 ksinny: \o/ 17:03:33 .hello miabbott 17:03:35 miabbott: miabbott 'Micah Abbott' 17:03:36 dustymabe: Hey! 17:03:45 .fas jasonbrooks 17:03:45 jbrooks: jasonbrooks 'Jason Brooks' 17:03:52 .hello smilner 17:03:53 ashcrow: smilner 'None' 17:04:08 a good crowd here today 17:04:12 .hello maxamillion 17:04:13 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 17:04:14 no troublemakers so far 17:04:22 UNTIL NOW 17:04:24 ;-P 17:04:25 >.> 17:04:27 :) 17:05:16 #chair dustymabe jbrooks ashcrow ksinny miabbott strigazi davdunc 17:05:16 Current chairs: ashcrow davdunc dustymabe jberkus jbrooks ksinny miabbott strigazi 17:05:27 #chair jbrooks 17:05:27 Current chairs: ashcrow davdunc dustymabe jberkus jbrooks ksinny miabbott strigazi 17:05:45 #topic action items from last meeting 17:06:37 first ones are mine 17:06:48 jberkus to raise kube installation issues with openshift installer team 17:06:56 that's in progress with Jbrooks etc. 17:07:09 jberkus to follow up on images from Flock container workshop 17:07:24 I've been working on these, and a couple of procedural issues have come up 17:08:01 1. it would be really nice if we had a fedora-owned place to upload files for the container image submissions, and 17:08:19 2. it would be really nice if that place allowed minor edits by reviewers (ala Gist) 17:08:45 it seems really stupid for me to need to tell a submitter "hey, can you fix the smartquote characters in your dockerfile"? 17:09:41 PRs to a repo in pagure? 17:09:49 that would work for me 17:09:59 it's also WAY easier for me to track pagure than bugzilla 17:10:51 jberkus: can you put the new repo under the 'atomic' group like we did for kube? 17:11:00 sure 17:11:03 maxamillion: comment? 17:11:04 https://pagure.io/atomic/kubernetes-sig 17:12:12 waiting for maxamillion to comment, and then I'll action myself 17:12:17 then 3. 17:12:32 eh 17:12:42 yeah, that's fine 17:13:04 is there an open source solution that would be gist-esque and would fill that need? we could request the infra team to host it 17:13:22 I think we should add at least a *narrative* testing procedure to the submission requirements 17:13:38 like, dan walsh submitted a logorotate container, but I'm not clear on how to test it 17:14:03 scriptable tests would be even better, but that's a huge unresolved issue for this 17:14:04 jberkus: also that 17:14:48 maxamillion: I don't know. I agree that it would be better because asking submitters to create a PR in pagure and then an issue in bugzilla seems dumb 17:15:16 maxamillion: question: is there a fedora technical or policy reason we must use bugzilla? 17:15:52 jberkus: I honestly don't know 17:16:11 because the easy-for-submitters route would be to move the whole thing to pagure 17:16:12 I would have thought it made the requests searchable for the people tracking next gen product management. 17:16:38 (well, the *really* easy would be to use github, but I know that's against policy) 17:17:34 davdunc: is that something you can verify? 17:18:02 jberkus: it is. 17:18:07 I'm pretty much always happier not interacting w/ bugzilla ;) 17:18:21 #action jberkus to find place to host editable dockerfiles/readmes for container submissions 17:18:35 #action davdunc to verify whether we're required to use bugzilla 17:18:40 jberkus: I agree it would be easier to do a PR of some sort 17:18:46 how do I remove an action? 17:18:59 jberkus: I think some of it is tooling, there's a lot of tooling that would have to migrate out of BZ 17:19:00 hashtag undo? 17:19:05 #undo 17:19:05 Removing item from minutes: ACTION by jberkus at 17:18:35 : davdunc to verify whether we're required to use bugzilla 17:19:12 #action davdunc to verify whether we're required to use bugzilla for container submissions 17:20:06 ok, moving on 17:20:25 dustymabe to update the rolling release plan with info about f27ah 17:20:54 dustymabe: ? 17:21:20 jberkus: i just opened this ticket: Issue #365: Article for F27: Fedora 26->27 Atomic Host Upgrade Guide 17:21:32 https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/365 17:21:39 the plan is to update people there 17:21:52 ok 17:22:08 i'll assign myself that ticket 17:22:13 I can help test/review that 17:22:18 jbrooks to email fedora-devel with issue of needed deps for asciibinder container 17:22:19 thanks strigazi 17:22:24 jbrooks: ? 17:22:28 I did that 17:22:37 jbrooks: any response? 17:22:46 #info jbrooks msg to fedora devel about asciibinder https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4U3C4EMLFZIHK3Q5NT5PA2WPOXAMAUPD/ 17:22:54 Yeah, it was pretty fruitful 17:23:03 strigazi++ dustymabe++ 17:23:04 maxamillion: Karma for strigazi changed to 2 (for the f26 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:23:16 Matthew Miller had put out a call on the ruby-sig 17:23:30 Someone made a pkg, is asking for testing: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HI5UZHSDQB5BRLKBXZWOC3YCND7BACGU/ 17:23:43 He cut out a bunch of the deps, so he's wondering if it'll still work 17:23:55 So we could test that and get back to him 17:23:57 ok 17:24:30 jbrooks++ 17:24:35 And for the issue of was it worth it, people were like: yay rpms! 17:24:36 so 17:24:37 :) 17:24:37 i'm glad the email was fruitful 17:24:52 #action jbrooks jberkus to test asciibinder rpm 17:25:05 strigazi to do some testing around upgrades from f26 to f27 with kubernetes 17:25:07 strigazi: ? 17:26:03 * strigazi is writing.. 17:27:03 I deployed kubernetes in single node - single master cluster with system container (based on kube 1.8.0) and 17:27:29 upgraded successfully from f26 to f27. 17:27:48 etcd and flannel where running from the host rpms 17:28:05 the kubernetes contairners where the same 17:28:20 rawhide-based 17:28:41 so, no problems, the upgrade for kube worked 17:28:43 strigazi: i wonder if we do the same with our f26 based containers if we'll be good 17:28:49 strigazi: that's aweseom news 17:28:55 yay! 17:29:12 strigazi: do you have a doc of the steps you took? 17:29:33 No, I can run something down tmr 17:29:48 I'll open an issue in kubernetes-sig 17:30:02 strigazi, did you install flannel and etcd via layering? 17:30:19 yes 17:30:54 I can try again by running everything in system containers, makes more sense 17:30:58 * dustymabe notes we are 30 minutes in and still on previous meeting action items 17:31:20 there were alot of them 17:31:46 I did that upgrade, there's a wrinkle in the etcd data dir that'll need documenting 17:31:58 ok, sounds good 17:32:20 #action strigazi jbrooks to document the steps they took for f27 kube upgrade 17:32:32 davdunc to blog AWS MP availability of FAH/Cloud. 17:32:34 davdunc: ? 17:33:16 jberkus: sounds like we should add that as a "Article for F27:" ticket 17:33:24 still working on availability. We are in the final stages, but there were some issues related to using fedora project URLs and those not matching. 17:33:41 dustymabe: more, it should be part of this ticket: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/365 17:33:42 not matching my email domain account. 17:33:59 davdunc: ah. anything anyone else can fix? 17:34:17 jberkus: doesn't seem like that should be part of an 'upgrade' article 17:34:47 jberkus: I have it in hand. Matt and I anticipated some of these issues, so I have all the requirements for legal in the pipeline. 17:35:00 dustymabe: oh, wait, no, here: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/355 17:36:05 davdunc: thanks 17:36:31 jberkus: i still don't see how aws marketplace has anything to do with migrating kube 17:36:32 I'll have a blog ready for Friday. I'll reach out for edits. 17:36:50 dustymabe: what? no, that was for the prior item 17:37:01 davdunc: cool, thanks! 17:37:41 ok, before we get into tickets 17:37:46 #topic new meeting time 17:37:51 dustymabe: ? 17:38:15 #info ok it looks like the time that was top voted (with 9 votes) was: 16:30 UTC (11:30 EST / 18:30 CEST / 22:00 IST) 17:38:31 I was planning to do a 'runoff' doodle but then some more people voted and we had a majority 17:38:51 I also talked with a few people who voted no and they said they should be able to make it work 17:39:05 great 17:39:12 what date is the first meeting at that time? 17:39:18 cool 17:39:21 I said November 8th in the ticket 17:39:33 any opposition? 17:39:45 none here +1 17:39:57 how about instead 17:40:00 all in favor? 17:40:03 +1 17:40:07 +1 17:40:07 +1 17:40:08 +1 17:40:09 +1 17:40:10 +1 17:40:16 +1 17:40:53 ok, new meeting time approved 17:41:00 #action dustymabe to broadcast out new meeting time 17:41:27 #topic open tickets 17:41:47 jberkus: let's cover the 'article' tickets real quick 17:41:52 first, there are a bunch of tickets open for articles/docs we want/need to have for f27 17:41:53 https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting&search_pattern=Article+for+F27 17:42:32 can we get volunteers for ones that aren't assigned? 17:42:49 +1 17:42:55 ashcrow: miabbott strigazi maxamillion ? 17:42:56 sorry, reading backlog ... multitasking badly 17:43:11 dustymabe: I'll pick one up 17:43:13 ksinny: it might be nice if we could have an article about mutli-arch enablement as well 17:43:14 * strigazi is looking 17:43:27 I'll take the system containers one 17:43:40 ashcrow: please go ahead and assign the ticket to yourself 17:43:42 *sold* to ashcrow 17:43:44 will do 17:43:47 \o/ 17:43:54 i'll take the cockpit one 17:44:05 woot! 17:44:10 this is exciting 17:44:14 ashcrow: got first. dustymabe what is left? cockpit? 17:44:24 dustymabe I'll add a ticket for the AWS MP blog and tag it appropriately for tracking 17:44:30 davdunc: thanks 17:44:31 dustymabe: yes, I will do one for multi-arch 17:44:38 strigazi: jbrooks has two assigned to him for kube stuff 17:44:45 do you mind helping him with those? or taking one from him 17:44:56 ksinny: can you create a ticket for that one? 17:45:08 ok, I'll talk with him about it 17:45:09 jberkus: yes, I will 17:45:15 ok, I'll work on editing all of these articles 17:45:25 in addition to the general "features" article 17:45:46 jberkus / dustymabe: FYI I will need access to the space to be able to assign myself :-) https://pagure.io/atomic-wg 17:45:46 when anyone has a completed draft, please email it to me, unless it's going in pa.io blog, in which case just create a PR 17:45:55 ashcrow: i'll fix that 17:46:04 dustymabe: thanks! 17:46:25 #action Open a ticket to write a blogpost on mutli-arch enablement in F27 Atomic 17:46:29 ashcrow: i got you 17:47:06 miabbott: thanks :-) 17:47:46 ok, more meeting tickets 17:47:54 I'm going to go from easy --> hard 17:47:58 jberkus: one sec 17:48:16 who all is chair? i.e. was ksinny's #action valid? 17:48:25 not sure 17:48:32 ksinny is on the list 17:48:32 #chair jbrooks 17:48:32 Current chairs: ashcrow davdunc dustymabe jberkus jbrooks ksinny miabbott strigazi 17:48:39 ok looks good 17:48:44 :) 17:49:02 remove & replace fedora images on docker hub: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/362 17:49:20 there's 100% agreement that we're going to wipe out the existing images there and start over 17:49:50 then start syncing flibs to there 17:50:04 so taking meeting tag off that one 17:50:34 overhaul members list, quorum rules: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363 17:50:44 I'd like to table that issue until next meeting 17:50:49 as more people need to comment on it 17:50:56 jberkus: +1 17:50:58 and update their own group membership 17:51:33 this issue remains unresolved: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/360 17:51:46 do we want to schedule a meeting specifically around it? 17:52:19 that's the "how do we include CRI-O etc. in Fedora Atomic" 17:52:30 yeah, we might need to 17:52:38 jberkus: yes. I had planned to try to set something up but I've effectively been 'out' the past 3 business days 17:52:44 and likely schedule a VFAD later to get work done towards it 17:52:52 ok 17:53:08 #action dustymabe to schedule container-runtimes meeting 17:53:19 finally, one we can discuss here: 17:53:34 https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/351 17:53:56 atomic working group talks/sessions for devconf.cz 17:54:05 maxamillion: ^^ 17:54:09 walters: ^^ 17:54:17 jbrooks, everyone else 17:54:22 what are we planning to submit? 17:54:48 dustymabe: I won't be at devconf.cz this year, I have a kid on the way that's due a week and a half after devconf ... too close for comfort 17:54:51 for this meeting, I'd like to discuss ... what do we *really really want* to be part of devconfcz? 17:55:08 maxamillion: I see, congrats! 17:55:15 dustymabe: thanks :) 17:55:41 jberkus: what do you think should be the answer to that question? 17:55:57 well, I'd like your 101 workshop to be part of things 17:56:09 ok, already planned to submit it 17:56:13 do we want to do another container-maintainer workshop? 17:56:27 with a fallback to a talk if the workshop doesn't get accepted? 17:56:59 jberkus: seems reasonable 17:57:28 strigazi: would you be able to come to devconf 17:57:41 you and jbrooks could do a kubernetes/system containers on atomic host talk 17:57:41 i'm thinking of doing an rpm-ostree one 17:57:46 walters++ 17:57:47 dustymabe: Karma for walters changed to 2 (for the f26 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:57:50 what other technology do we want to spread around our dev communty? system containers? multiarch? 17:57:51 dustymabe I'll ask, chances might be slim 17:58:03 walters: with all the new commands? would be good 17:58:14 strigazi: it's in europe so maybe that helps 17:58:27 I haven't yet planned to go to devconf -- I guess it would be worthwhile? 17:58:27 dustymabe depends on the budget of the deparment at that time 17:58:42 I'm available to help with slides, cloud demo, related content, etc. If anyone wants support. 17:58:42 unfortunately, it's at the end of the fiscal year so Atomic community money is running low 17:58:54 davdunc: :) 17:58:55 but I can probably get one community member there, especially if they're giving a talk 17:59:12 jberkus: fedora also has budget for speakers sometimes 17:59:12 davdunc: are you planning on going? 17:59:25 i'll be there. 17:59:34 I have some submissions for Openshift already. 17:59:37 * dustymabe likes having davdunc around 17:59:50 davdunc: should we add those submissions to our list? 17:59:51 I have to drop, I have another meeting 17:59:55 davdunc: ok. would it be worthwhile to do some kind of "FAO on AWS" thing? 18:00:12 :-) yes. I would be glad to do it. 18:00:17 sorry we're not making it to open floor, did anyone have something urgent? 18:00:24 * ksinny thinks that it is difficult to have a talk dedicated to multi-arch :/ 18:00:38 jberkus: i did have an FYI 18:00:39 davdunc: let's sync up, I can see submitting both a workshop and a talk 18:00:43 dustymabe: go ahead 18:00:51 jberkus: is it worth trying to submit a "state of Fedora Atomic" talk? 18:00:54 jberkus If you were refering to me before, I'll try think of something 18:00:55 jberkus: sounds great. 18:01:12 jberkus: my FYI is that we are now using pungi for bodhi updates within fedora 18:01:30 ksinny: mostly, I'd think you'd be talking about the status of the effort. you could even co-present with CentOS multi-arch folks 18:01:30 this means that we now can enable updating our multi-arch ostrees 18:01:36 as well as atomic workstation ostrees 18:01:40 yay! 18:01:47 as well as give us better ostree versioning 18:02:02 dustymabe: do we want to submit something on fedora releng for atomic? 18:02:02 so wins all around 18:02:06 +1 for state of... 18:02:13 to devconf? 18:02:29 ehh, I think that would be more part of a larger talk if we did it 18:02:32 yah. too fedora-specific? 18:03:18 Hmm, I will see what I can do here 18:03:28 either we could add it to a fedora releng talk that was already being given 18:03:35 or we could add it to the state of fedora atomic talk 18:04:45 I'm not sure how I feel about state of atomic talk 18:04:53 those tend to be kind of boring for attendees 18:05:21 unless they're interesting in the improvements we've made over the past year 18:05:41 i tend to like those better than some more detailed talks 18:06:09 ok should we end this thing? 18:06:11 over time 18:06:13 What's the audience for devconf? Is it mostly RHers? 18:06:25 That's my perception, but maybe I'm wrong 18:06:31 jbrooks: RHers, friends, European hackers 18:06:59 contributors to RH-sponsored projects 18:07:09 ok, let's take this back to #atomic 18:07:16 #endmeeting