17:01:32 <dustymabe> #startmeeting fedora_atomic_wg
17:01:32 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov  1 17:01:32 2017 UTC.  The chair is dustymabe. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:32 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:32 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_atomic_wg'
17:01:40 <ttomecek> .hello
17:01:40 <zodbot> ttomecek: (hello <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1".
17:01:44 <ashcrow> .hello smilner
17:01:45 <zodbot> ashcrow: smilner 'None' <smilner@redhat.com>
17:01:47 <imcleod> .hello
17:01:51 <zodbot> imcleod: (hello <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1".
17:01:56 <ttomecek> .hello2
17:01:57 <zodbot> ttomecek: ttomecek 'Tomas Tomecek' <ttomecek@redhat.com>
17:02:05 <ksinny> .hello sinnykumari
17:02:06 <zodbot> ksinny: sinnykumari 'Sinny Kumari' <ksinny@gmail.com>
17:02:08 <puiterwijk> .hello2
17:02:10 <zodbot> puiterwijk: puiterwijk 'Patrick "マルタインアンドレアス" Uiterwijk' <puiterwijk@redhat.com>
17:02:16 <imcleod> .hello imcleod
17:02:18 <zodbot> imcleod: imcleod 'Ian McLeod' <imcleod@redhat.com>
17:02:53 <dustymabe> .hello2
17:02:54 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dustymabe@redhat.com>
17:03:00 <maxamillion> .hello2
17:03:01 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
17:03:03 <dustymabe> ttomecek: hiya :)
17:03:19 <jbrooks> .hello jasonbrooks
17:03:20 <zodbot> jbrooks: jasonbrooks 'Jason Brooks' <JBROOKS@REDHAT.COM>
17:03:21 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: welcome!
17:03:40 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: heh, thanks. I decided to hop by for once again after skipping out so often
17:03:57 <kushal> .hellomynameis kushal
17:03:58 <zodbot> kushal: kushal 'Kushal Das' <mail@kushaldas.in>
17:04:05 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: no problem, thank you
17:04:09 <dustymabe> kushal: welcome
17:04:39 <dustymabe> #chair ttomecek ashcrow imcleod ttomecek ksinny puiterwijk maxamillion jbrooks puiterwijk kushal
17:04:39 <zodbot> Current chairs: ashcrow dustymabe imcleod jbrooks ksinny kushal maxamillion puiterwijk ttomecek
17:05:48 <dustymabe> ok will start with a few announcements
17:05:57 <dustymabe> #topic new meeting time
17:06:28 <dustymabe> #info our meeting time next week will be 16:30 UTC (11:30 EST / 18:30 CEST / 22:00 IST)
17:06:41 <dustymabe> This was decided in ticket https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/346
17:06:51 <dustymabe> #link https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/346#comment-474667
17:07:06 <dustymabe> those times should be the updated times considering daylight savings time
17:07:07 <maxamillion> +1
17:07:11 <dustymabe> let me know if I'm wrong
17:07:35 <puiterwijk> DST--
17:07:50 <maxamillion> oh yeah, DST is silly
17:07:58 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: yes, it is a sad time of year for me. Loss of daylight in evening is barbaric
17:08:10 <dustymabe> but super useful in some jobs I'm sure
17:08:45 <maxamillion> dustymabe: not anymore, I have family in the agriculture industry and they say it's a become a myth these days because of modern tech
17:08:53 <ashcrow> maxamillion: yup
17:08:56 <dustymabe> either way - we'll move on to the next announcement :)
17:09:03 <maxamillion> dustymabe: +1
17:09:09 <dustymabe> #topic last f26AH release was yesterday
17:09:27 <dustymabe> #info The last f26AH release was yesterday 10/31. Future releases will be based on Fedora 27
17:09:36 <dustymabe> this should match expectations
17:09:44 <dustymabe> any suprises here?
17:09:56 <maxamillion> not I
17:09:57 <ashcrow> Sounds good to me
17:10:31 <dustymabe> cool
17:10:31 <kurushiyama> Good evening
17:10:35 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: welcome
17:10:41 <jbrooks> sweet
17:10:44 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: do you have a fedora account?
17:10:47 <kurushiyama> Thank you, Sir!
17:11:00 <kurushiyama> Not yet. I can set one up, I guess.
17:11:08 <dustymabe> if you have one now (or in the future) you can identify yourself like this:
17:11:13 <dustymabe> .hello dustymabe
17:11:14 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dustymabe@redhat.com>
17:11:21 <dustymabe> just a note for the future :)
17:11:39 <dustymabe> just FYI everyone kurushiyama is a user of atomic. I asked kurushiyama to join us
17:11:48 <dustymabe> ok moving on to previous meeting action items
17:11:51 <ashcrow> Awesome! Welcome kurushiyama!
17:12:01 <dustymabe> #topic previous meeting action items
17:12:03 <ksinny> kurushiyama: Hello and welcome!
17:12:30 <dustymabe> i'll do my two AI first
17:12:36 <dustymabe> * dustymabe to broadcast out new meeting time
17:12:43 <davdunc> .hello davdunc
17:12:44 <zodbot> davdunc: davdunc 'David Duncan' <davdunc@amazon.com>
17:12:56 <dustymabe> I'll do that right after this meeting is over. Didn't want to do it before the meeting so as to not confuse anyone on the time for today's meeting
17:13:03 <dustymabe> * dustymabe to schedule container-runtimes meeting
17:13:24 <dustymabe> we are going to try to have some discussions around crio and docker in AH in the coming weeks
17:13:30 <dustymabe> ashcrow has volunteered to run those meetings
17:13:36 <dustymabe> i'm going to re-assign my AI to him for now
17:13:39 <ashcrow> +1
17:13:54 <dustymabe> #action ashcrow to schedule container-runtimes meetings for discussions around cri-o/docker
17:14:08 <dustymabe> ok other action items
17:14:10 <dustymabe> * jberkus to find place to host editable dockerfiles/readmes for
17:14:12 <dustymabe> container submissions
17:14:14 <dustymabe> * davdunc to verify whether we're required to use bugzilla for container
17:14:16 <dustymabe> submissions
17:14:18 <dustymabe> * jbrooks jberkus to test asciibinder rpm
17:14:20 <dustymabe> * strigazi jbrooks to document the steps they took for f27 kube upgrade
17:14:53 <jbrooks> I haven't done mine yet
17:15:47 * davdunc found no blockers  to moving away from bugzilla
17:15:51 <dustymabe> jbrooks: for both items?
17:16:39 <ashcrow> davdunc: that's good news!
17:16:45 <dustymabe> seems as if jberkus is not around
17:16:46 <jbrooks> dustymabe, Yeah, I haven't looked at asciibinder at all, and have been working on getting the f27 system containers to test w/
17:17:00 <dustymabe> jbrooks: 10-4
17:17:08 <dustymabe> #action jbrooks jberkus to test asciibinder rpm
17:17:16 <dustymabe> #action strigazi jbrooks to document the steps they took for f27 kube upgrade
17:17:18 <davdunc> I went directly to RH PMs to ensure we weren't breaking any analytics.
17:17:48 <maxamillion> I'll be honest, I don't think RH PMs are a Fedora concern
17:17:57 <kurushiyama> First of all: Thank you for the invitation and the warm welcome. So that you understand our usage of Atomic: We are a company providing cyber security from layer 1-4 for quite some names and we are using Atomic (RHEL7), Ansible and docker swarm in our cluster.
17:18:01 <maxamillion> I'd be more curious about what the Council and FESCo think of it
17:18:04 <dustymabe> jbrooks: the documentation for f27 kube stuff is probably going to be important we get that done sooner than later because I'll link to it from one of the posts I am doing
17:18:39 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: cool deal
17:18:41 <davdunc> maxamillion: I did include mattdm in my inquiry.
17:18:46 <dustymabe> ok one final action item
17:18:52 <dustymabe> * Open a ticket to write a blogpost on mutli-arch enablement in F27
17:18:54 <dustymabe> Atomic
17:18:58 <dustymabe> i think that was for ksinny
17:19:00 <maxamillion> davdunc: cool cool
17:19:33 <ksinny> dustymabe: created one at https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/369 . Also Sent PR for post https://github.com/projectatomic/atomic-site/pull/483
17:20:48 <dustymabe> #info ksinny opened atomic-wg ticket #369 for mutli-arch blog post
17:21:08 <ksinny> dustymabe: thx
17:21:10 <dustymabe> ok let's move to meeting agenda items
17:21:36 <dustymabe> #topic proposal to include firewalld in atomic host
17:21:42 <dustymabe> #link https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/372
17:22:03 <kurushiyama> If I may say something about this proposal?
17:22:10 <dustymabe> I just created this ticket an hour ago. TL;DR we'd like to include firewalld in atomic host
17:22:12 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: sure
17:22:45 <maxamillion> kurushiyama: by all means, please do :)
17:23:29 <kurushiyama> Ok, a bit more detail about our usage first: We provide services for companies which require us to hold a certificate of the BSI (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, Federal Agency for IT Security).
17:23:55 <kurushiyama> And one of their requirements is actually a multi stage firewall concept.
17:25:04 <kurushiyama> We had quite a hard time explaining to them why Atomic does not come with an included firewall. Actually, the fact that RHEL is a BSI certified Linux kind of depends on the fact that a firewall is included.
17:25:06 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: in short, does that mean firewalld would help you?
17:25:21 <kurushiyama> Absolutely.
17:25:28 <puiterwijk> Well, do note that a firewall is still included in the form of iptables
17:25:33 <puiterwijk> Just not firewalld
17:25:33 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: well atomic has the same firewall linux has used forever, iptables
17:25:36 <kurushiyama> But I guess it is important to explain why.
17:25:37 <ashcrow> And, to clarify, the use of iptables isn't enough for the use case?
17:25:58 <kurushiyama> @puiterwijk Try to explain that to a government official... ;)
17:26:10 <puiterwijk> kurushiyama: well, iptables is the actual firewall anyway.... :)
17:26:10 <ashcrow> kurushiyama: LOL. Good point :-)
17:26:16 <puiterwijk> firewalld is just a management layer on top of iptables
17:26:17 <kurushiyama> ashcrow We are _not_ talking of technical requirements.
17:26:38 <kurushiyama> It is more of a documentation issue.
17:26:44 <ashcrow> I see
17:26:51 <ashcrow> Kind of like a "check box" type of thing?
17:27:46 <kurushiyama> ashcrow Sorta. Aside from the fact that I'd love to have firewalld included so that it would be a bit easier to limit access to resources than to fiddle with iptables.
17:27:49 <dustymabe> ehh theoretically iptables should be able to click the "check box" too, but if having something called firewalld would help, I'm for it
17:27:58 * davdunc is ducking out. I have LISA booth duty training now.
17:28:07 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: yes, that is my main reasoning
17:28:10 <dustymabe> davdunc: have fun!
17:28:20 <dustymabe> davdunc: talk to people about atomic host!
17:28:25 <davdunc> will do.
17:28:31 <ashcrow> dustymabe: yeah, it's easier to convince non technical folks that firewalld is firewall management while iptables (the actual firewall tech) sounds like something else.
17:28:42 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: we could rename the iptables(8) CLI to firewallctl? :P
17:28:53 <dustymabe> :)
17:28:54 <puiterwijk> mv /bin/iptables /bin/firewallctl <- done!
17:29:04 <kurushiyama> puiterwijk :D
17:29:14 <puiterwijk> And you can even do full backwards compat by just "ln -s" instead!
17:29:17 <ashcrow> kurushiyama: Thanks for bringing that up. That block never occured to me.
17:29:24 <dustymabe> yeah either way I think our technical reasons for wanting to include firewalld are compelling as well
17:29:38 <maxamillion> puiterwijk: oh man, that'd be ... rough
17:29:48 <dustymabe> can everyone add their opinion in the ticket (including a +1 or -1 based on preference?)
17:29:51 <kurushiyama> well, my blog runs on atomic. On DO. Without firewall... ;)
17:30:02 <ashcrow> The only downside I see to adding it is the size added to the image. However, I have a feeling it won't add as much as I assume it does.
17:30:05 <dustymabe> we'll give people who aren't here time to chime in and then probably decide next meeting
17:30:06 <ashcrow> dustymabe: good idea, will do.
17:30:43 <puiterwijk> maxamillion: well, as said, we can be fully backwards compatible by just linking! It'd be so fun! :D
17:30:51 <dustymabe> #info don't see any major objections to the idea from meeting attendees today. Will wait a week for people to weigh in on the ticket.
17:31:15 <dustymabe> #topic Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules
17:31:21 <dustymabe> #link https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363
17:31:39 <dustymabe> this was proposed by jberkus, he isn't here today
17:32:26 <dustymabe> mostly we need to make a more formal structure for making decisions within this working group
17:32:32 <kurushiyama> My Fedora account is not processed, yet, but I will gladly provide the explanation why it is necessary or at least helpful for security certifications.
17:33:00 <dustymabe> we've mostly done lazy concensus so far and we haven't had any hard formal requirements for group members
17:33:13 <dustymabe> this ticket aims to more clearly define things
17:33:24 <dustymabe> please read the ticket and comment there
17:33:43 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: yes please do that if we have time at the end of the meeting in open floor
17:33:56 <kurushiyama> sure
17:34:04 <dustymabe> anyone have anything they want to say on the current topic?
17:34:51 <ashcrow> Nothing from me
17:35:01 <dustymabe> ok
17:35:03 <dustymabe> moving on
17:35:04 <kurushiyama> I will add something to the ticket.
17:35:11 <dustymabe> #topic  Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules
17:35:16 <dustymabe> sigh :)
17:35:23 <dustymabe> #topic  Fedora Docker Images on Docker Hub
17:35:28 <dustymabe> #link https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/362
17:35:50 <dustymabe> i think we've mostly got agreement in the ticket
17:35:59 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: very, very strong +1 on nuking and startover from me
17:36:19 <dustymabe> #info agreed that we will clear out all images on docker hub under the fedora organization and start fresh
17:36:25 <puiterwijk> I looked at some of the images on the Fedora space.... They did not make me happy :)
17:36:26 <dustymabe> any opposition?
17:36:35 <maxamillion> nope
17:36:39 <maxamillion> just need to get around to doing it
17:36:55 <puiterwijk> (note: I'm not an Atomic WG member. This is just my personal opinion as someone who values security)
17:37:09 <ashcrow> +1 on nuke
17:37:25 <dustymabe> maxamillion: should we convert this ticket into an actionable task to actually do the removal?
17:37:38 <kurushiyama> Hm, which means that images based on the shasums will be broken
17:37:42 <dustymabe> or should we open a new ticket for that?
17:37:55 <maxamillion> dustymabe: yeah, make it actionable and assign it to me
17:38:16 <puiterwijk> kurushiyama: correct. All the hub.docker.io/fedora/* (not the /_/fedora, which is hub.docker.io/fedora:25, those are fine), will be removed
17:38:17 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: not sure I understand the question? maybe maxamillion does
17:38:35 <dustymabe> thanks puiterwijk
17:38:53 <puiterwijk> kurushiyama: however, docker hub will likely not remove the bases of any pushed images, so images on the hub that are based on the Fedora images will still work (we can't control that)
17:39:15 <dustymabe> that's fine IMHO
17:39:26 <dustymabe> prevents at least any future images from getting built
17:39:31 <puiterwijk> Yep
17:39:38 <kurushiyama> I guess we should either make sure or make a public announcement, then.
17:40:14 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: that's not a bad idea
17:40:22 <dustymabe> maxamillion: ^^ can you handle that?
17:40:40 <dustymabe> i.e. announce what we are doing with respect to images on docker hub
17:40:52 <puiterwijk> There's not much to "make sure" - I can guarantee you that all images that have a "FROM fedora/...." *will* break
17:40:56 <maxamillion> dustymabe: yeah, I can announce it and then remove them after some time
17:41:05 <puiterwijk> (note again: "FROM fedora:<version>" will *not* break)
17:41:09 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: yes, they will break during builds
17:41:11 <maxamillion> puiterwijk: +1
17:41:21 <dustymabe> but images that already have been built and are uploaded will work fine
17:41:29 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: yeah, just trying to make things clear, since there's two different image series that look almost the same :)
17:41:32 <puiterwijk> Correct
17:41:36 <dustymabe> indeed
17:42:06 <dustymabe> #action maxamillion to announce to the world that we are planning to remove fedora docker layered images from docker hub and start fresh
17:42:09 <dustymabe> good deal
17:42:16 <dustymabe> moving to next topic .....
17:42:47 <dustymabe> #topic help.md file for each container
17:42:52 <dustymabe> #link https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/354
17:43:02 <dustymabe> jberkus tagged this with meeting tag
17:43:25 <dustymabe> ttomecek: can you provide us a summary?
17:44:22 * dustymabe thinks we may have lost ttomecek
17:45:10 <ashcrow> :-)
17:45:24 <dustymabe> maxamillion: opinions?
17:45:57 <ashcrow> Quickly looking at the proposal I like the idea of having a standard help file/format for containers
17:46:25 <dustymabe> yeah I think we already do. I think tomas was saying that right now it's ambiguous
17:46:45 <dustymabe> we mention it in two different places and it's not clear if it's required or not
17:47:20 <maxamillion> dustymabe: it's a good idea
17:47:26 <maxamillion> I like it for the most part
17:48:24 <dustymabe> maxamillion: don't we already require a help file?
17:48:38 <dustymabe> what is being proposed that is different from what we already do?
17:48:50 <maxamillion> oh, I misunderstood them
17:48:52 <maxamillion> then*
17:49:21 <maxamillion> I was thinking this would replace the helpfile but me more complete
17:49:39 <ashcrow> I think the difference is this proposal adds specific required sections/fields
17:50:01 <kurushiyama> .hello mwmahlberg
17:50:03 <zodbot> kurushiyama: mwmahlberg 'Markus Wolfgang Mahlberg' <markus.mahlberg@icloud.com>
17:50:18 <ashcrow> or at least in a specific format (as defined in the proposal)
17:50:21 <dustymabe> ashcrow: that's fine with me
17:50:57 <ashcrow> the original Fedora proposal is a bit more open ended and can be one of two files
17:51:12 <dustymabe> I'll try to add a question or two to the ticket
17:51:18 <dustymabe> ashcrow: unless you want to?
17:51:32 <dustymabe> basically would be nice to not let this one sit
17:52:22 <dustymabe> ok moving on for now
17:52:35 <dustymabe> #topic open floor
17:52:46 <dustymabe> ksinny: any updates from multi-arch side of the house?
17:52:47 <ashcrow> dustymabe: agreed I'll follow up with it on the ticket
17:52:48 <maxamillion> nothing here
17:53:11 <dustymabe> does anyone have any multi-arch hardware they'd like to start using atomic host on?
17:53:30 <kurushiyama> @dustymabe Fedora account ready, contributor agreement signed.
17:53:35 <dustymabe> masta: ^^ ?
17:53:48 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: welcome :)
17:54:01 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: did you want to chat more about the requirements now that we are in open floor
17:54:27 <kurushiyama> If you are interested. I do not want to bore you guys ;)
17:54:31 <ksinny> dustymabe: F27 latest nightly composes has successful Atomic cloudImages and ISOs for aarch64 and ppc64le. They are running fine as well :)
17:55:04 <kurushiyama> @dustymabe ^
17:55:26 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: personally, I think that if we're going to ship multi-arch Atomic Host, we should make sure that those different arches also get tested the same way as x86_64
17:55:38 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: in that case maybe we can chat in #atomic after the meeting
17:56:00 <kurushiyama> dustymabe At your command ;)
17:56:09 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: yeah that is a gap
17:56:15 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: and yes, I totally realize that that is really difficult, and we might not have the hardware.
17:56:37 <puiterwijk> But I'd suggest that if we cannot test them, we ship them as "alternate" deliverables, with a warning label on the download page
17:56:54 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: well at this moment we don't have any plans to update the actual website
17:56:59 <dustymabe> although maybe we should
17:57:04 <dustymabe> we just haven't thought of it
17:57:12 * ksinny thinks Fedora Atomic CI will good place to have Atomic Host tested on available arches
17:57:16 <puiterwijk> That's totally fair. Just wanted to point it out
17:57:28 <dustymabe> first step was going to be updating the release script to be able to support multi-arch
17:57:42 <dustymabe> and thus the text in the email that gets sent out would be updated accordingly
17:58:00 <puiterwijk> Right.
17:58:02 <dustymabe> we could add text in that email to say that these trees haven't been tested in the same way as x86_64
17:58:04 <dustymabe> WDYT?
17:58:08 <puiterwijk> Yep.
17:58:14 <dustymabe> ok
17:58:21 <puiterwijk> Well, maybe "not as extensively as x86_64" rather than "not in the same way"
17:58:38 <dustymabe> FYI I opened a ticket for this: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/362
17:58:42 <dustymabe> sigh
17:58:44 <dustymabe> wrong link
17:58:45 <puiterwijk> Since it's not just "not the same way", it's also "way less" (for now, until ksinny can give us all the hardware! :) )
17:58:47 <dustymabe> https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/371
17:59:04 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: yep
17:59:10 <ksinny> puiterwijk: haha, I too test on vm :D
17:59:44 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: if we can get the software updated/written for it, we could do ppc64(le) testing in the FICloud (openstack).
17:59:49 <dustymabe> as ksinny stated, i'm hoping that migrating from the autocloud setup and moving towards fedora CI (as discussed in https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/361) will give us multi-arch support too
18:00:09 <puiterwijk> Okay. I see you have better plans than I do.
18:00:19 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: :) well - hopefully
18:00:25 <ksinny> puiterwijk: But, yeah. I can talk with my team if we can have some additional public hardware for tetsing Fedora Atomic host
18:00:32 <dustymabe> we still need to do it :)
18:00:43 <dustymabe> but we should make it a priority
18:00:50 <ksinny> +1
18:00:52 <ksinny> dustymabe: One question, Where exactly offcial Atomic Host images will be published for aarch64 and ppc64le?
18:01:03 * ashcrow has to run to another meeting
18:01:15 <dustymabe> ksinny: at first mostly they will be links in the email we send out
18:01:28 <dustymabe> we'll need to figure out a strategy for how/where to host them on our website
18:01:36 <ksinny> dustymabe: sure
18:01:42 <dustymabe> and how to get that updated automatically like we do for x86_64 atomic
18:01:47 <dustymabe> when we do a new release
18:01:53 <ksinny> right
18:01:55 * dustymabe needs to open more tickets :)
18:02:03 <dustymabe> ksinny: how are your web skillz?? :)
18:02:19 * dustymabe looks at the time
18:02:28 <ksinny> dustymabe: So, all arches will follow bi-weekly update, right?
18:02:28 <dustymabe> will close the meeting in 2 minuts
18:02:35 <dustymabe> ksinny: that's the plan
18:02:39 <ksinny> cool
18:02:52 <ksinny> <dustymabe> ksinny: how are your web skillz?? :)
18:02:53 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: I am assuming that we'd be shipping the same day's image for all arches?
18:02:55 <dustymabe> i guess we could have alt arches actually just get updates and not have official releases
18:03:07 <ksinny> Not much I would say
18:03:11 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: yeah, that would be preferable
18:03:23 <puiterwijk> Aka, the ref would (obviously) be different, but the image "generation" should be the same?
18:03:35 <dustymabe> the ref would always be different
18:03:39 <puiterwijk> dustymabe: personally, I would call that a "requirement". But that might be me
18:03:49 <ksinny> dustymabe: will be interested to hear for what you have asked. maybe, I can try and learn while doing
18:03:54 <dustymabe> the version 'should' be the same assuming we get the 'smart versioning' set up
18:04:23 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: the refs are arch specific
18:04:27 <dustymabe> so they would always be different
18:04:38 <dustymabe> right?
18:04:43 <puiterwijk> Correct.
18:04:57 <puiterwijk> However, the package contents (aka, package NVRs) would be the same in the same image "generation"
18:04:57 <dustymabe> the 'version' should be the same for what we release (assuming smart versioning)
18:05:09 <dustymabe> puiterwijk: indeed
18:05:15 <dustymabe> they would all be built from the same package set
18:05:18 <puiterwijk> Yep
18:05:23 <dustymabe> cool
18:05:30 <dustymabe> we are on the same page
18:05:36 <dustymabe> ok closing out meeting now
18:05:36 <puiterwijk> That's guaranteed with the new Bodhi even :)
18:05:44 <dustymabe> move any other discussion to #atomic :)
18:05:48 <dustymabe> #endmeeting