20:00:24 #startmeeting Fedora Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2018-03-20) 20:00:24 Meeting started Tue Mar 20 20:00:24 2018 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:24 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 20:00:24 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_server_sig_weekly_meeting_(2018-03-20)' 20:00:24 #meetingname serversig 20:00:24 #topic Roll Call 20:00:24 The meeting name has been set to 'serversig' 20:00:30 .hello2 20:00:31 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 20:00:42 .hello 20:00:42 smooge: (hello ) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1". 20:00:49 yep thats my day 20:00:52 .hello2 20:00:53 mjwolf: mjwolf 'Michael Wolf' 20:00:54 I hear you 20:00:57 .hello3 20:01:08 .hello2 20:01:09 smooge: smooge 'Stephen J Smoogen' 20:02:03 .hello dperpeet 20:02:04 dperpeet: dperpeet 'None' 20:02:12 sorry I'm late 20:02:19 .hello adamwill 20:02:30 adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' 20:03:08 #chair smooge mjwolf dperpeet adamw 20:03:08 Current chairs: adamw dperpeet mjwolf sgallagh smooge 20:03:18 OK, let's get started. Thanks for coming 20:03:23 #topic Agenda 20:03:28 #info Agenda Item: Server Roles 20:03:39 Any other topics for this week? 20:04:35 We have 1-2? more weeks until Beta releases 20:05:15 smooge: Things are actually looking fairly good right now for Thursday. 20:05:33 Looks like just one ARM issue left that's an accepted blocker and three proposed ones I need to go through tonight and vote on 20:06:15 smooge: Do you want to put something about that on the agenda? 20:06:22 we have nothing server specific that's unaddressed, i still need to hack up openqa to re-test upgrade with the proposed fix. 20:06:24 i'm getting to that. 20:06:43 adamw: Except that proposed FreeIPA issue 20:06:52 oh, I missed that was ON_QA 20:06:54 Awesome 20:07:07 (Just noted it was a proposed Blocker) 20:07:31 #topic Fedora 28 Beta and Server 20:07:39 (Since we're discussing it, may as well make it the topic) 20:07:49 adamw++ as usual for your superhuman efforts on the Beta 20:08:29 I ran through most of the AD client tests yesterday and we're good there. 20:08:55 I forgot to update the test wiki, but I'll do that for the RC candidate when it arrives 20:09:05 freeipa tests are all passing now except upgrade, and the outstanding proposed blocker is the bug for that. there is a fix for it that needs testing, i'm going to get that tested today. 20:09:12 sgallagh, sorry it was more of a "people interested in server should be ready to help adamw on anything he needs from testing to liver transplants" 20:09:21 #info "we have nothing server specific that's unaddressed" -- adamw 20:09:31 hmm 20:09:37 smooge: Nobody wants *my* liver after this last couple of weeks 20:09:40 you know, just to tempt fate 20:09:50 i suppose i should go click on the 'aarch64' results, shouldn't I. 20:10:01 Yeah, that's blocking now 20:10:17 * sgallagh really needs to get himself an RPi3 for testing 20:11:05 eh, test isn't running properly. oh, yeah, all the tests that start from a disk image uploaded by a previous test are failing to boot properly. i don't know why yet, didn't reach it on my list of things that are on fire. 20:11:50 #info aarch64 test status is presently indeterminate 20:12:02 adamw: Thanks for the update 20:12:08 sorry, was in another meeting that ran over 20:12:10 * nirik reads up 20:12:15 #action smooge to donate livers as needed 20:12:18 #undo 20:12:18 Removing item from minutes: ACTION by sgallagh at 20:12:15 : smooge to donate livers as needed 20:12:25 ah, UEFI bullshit. alright. will deal with that later. 20:12:39 always wanted to do "We've come for your liver.." 20:12:47 #info Server SIG members are politely asked to make themselves available for testing and fire-fighting 20:12:59 smooge: Just leave my spleen alone, please. 20:13:31 mjwolf: Not that it's blocking, but do you have any concerns about PPC64le stuff for this release? 20:14:20 the testing has been going smoothly for us. I will double check with my testers 20:15:01 mjwolf: OK, thanks 20:16:36 Alright, I think we're green here, then 20:16:57 adamw: If that changes, let me know. I'll make myself available for whatever firefighting is needed. 20:17:01 yeah our internal openQA has a problem and a bug opened on that the rest looks good 20:17:23 is s390 also tested by your team? 20:17:49 no. I dont have access to s390 only power systems. 20:18:19 note (as jwb always tells me): it's s390x. ;) 20:18:35 :-) 20:18:51 yeah.. I am only stopped calling them s360 20:19:19 ok sorry no more derailment 20:19:39 nirik, YES! 20:20:50 OK, anything further on this topic? 20:22:02 #topic Server Roles 20:22:26 We've discussed in the past that rolekit is a failed experiment. I was talking with adamw briefly today about how we go about retiring it. 20:22:39 I plan to file a Change Proposal for F29 this week 20:23:11 adamw pointed out that our release criteria essentially come from our approved PRD and that this decision would be a substantial change to that document. 20:23:14 as i mentioned, i see this as flowing from the PRD down to the tech spec to the criteria to the test cases to the tests 20:23:20 we need to change things in that order 20:24:06 (or else the PRD and tech spec become just another couple of WikiLies and adam-the-bureaucrat is sad) 20:24:10 I have to leave to pick up my son. sorry about this 20:24:46 adamw: So you'd prefer that we modify and/or rewrite the PRD, yes? 20:24:59 smooge: Don't apologize for being a good dad! 20:25:12 sgallagh: basically, yes. change the PRD, then change the tech spec on the basis of the changed PRD, then change the criteria on the basis of the changed tech spec, etc. 20:25:22 * nirik nods. sounds like a good way to go. 20:25:23 sgallagh: i mean, it depends if he follows up by *dropping* his son... 20:25:34 ... 20:26:27 Okay, so the follow-up question becomes: do we want to just modify the sections that refer to roles, or take a scythe to it and rework it heavily? 20:27:14 It *has* been four years since that document was written 20:27:22 (!!!) 20:27:57 Actually, dropping roles even hits our Mission Statement, which currently reads "Fedora Server is a common base platform with "featured server roles" built on top of it. We commit to produce, test, and distribute these server roles." 20:28:25 would it make sense to first modify the roles section and then iterate on the rest? 20:28:32 so that the roles-related changes are unblocked 20:28:40 So I suppose now might be about the right time to consider starting from the beginning 20:29:00 dperpeet: Well, we can clearly indicate that the rewrite is going to do away with them and proceed down that path in parallel. 20:29:07 Assuming adamw is okay with that approach 20:29:12 fine by me 20:29:15 so long as i don't have to do it :P 20:29:36 adamw: Well, I'll probably ask you to remove rolekit from the tests. 20:29:41 i meant the prd 20:29:45 OK 20:29:47 i'll happily work on the bits from criteria on down 20:29:51 Thanks 20:30:02 prd and tech spec i'd really rather someone else did it and all i have to do is review :P 20:30:20 Fair 20:30:31 as long as the paths are parallel that sounds good :) 20:30:51 So, I don't think we want to try to rewrite this today, so I'd instead like to give everyone here a homework assignment: 20:31:49 Come up with what you personally think the mission of Fedora Server should be for the next couple of years. We'll put them together at next week's meeting and find the common threads and I'll start a PRD draft from that. 20:31:55 Sound reasonable? 20:32:14 perhaps we sould also solicit the list 20:32:20 I think our vision statement is still a good one: "Fedora Server is the preferred [community] platform for system administrators and developers seeking to deploy applications and services that use the latest technology on a stable foundation with effective resource utilization." 20:33:13 nirik: If we do that, I'd rather have people send me their thoughts in private. I'd actually like to do this as a brainstorm exercise with everyone's ideas starting untainted by others' suggestions. 20:33:24 ok 20:33:35 I was originally thinking "have everyone paste their answer at the same time in the IRC meeting" 20:33:54 But if you think we'll get more ideas, I'm open to that. 20:34:53 Before we conclude this topic, does anyone feel like they want to contradict me on the status of the Vision Statement? 20:35:12 As in, does anyone feel it needs updating for the next phase of Server Edition? 20:36:21 I can see some friction with our CentOS siblings as written, but I think in general it still describes what we should aspire to be, even if it ends up being our downstream that finally accomplishes it 20:37:12 I agree it's still good 20:38:19 nirik, adamw, mjwolf ? 20:38:41 mmmmfffzzzzzwhat? 20:38:44 * adamw blinks awake, muzzily 20:38:51 oh, someone said 'vision statement'. sorry. 20:38:59 sure, fine. 20:39:07 yeah, I think it's still ok... 20:39:18 OK 20:39:32 I'm fine with the Vision statement 20:39:59 #action sgallagh to ask the Server SIG to privately send to him their picture of what should be the goal of the next 2-3 year of the Server Edition. 20:40:34 #info Next week's Server SIG meeting will be a brainstorming discussion to kick off a PRD revision. 20:40:45 I think that's it for this topic 20:40:49 #topic Open Floor 20:42:19 *crickets* 20:42:31 * nirik tries not to fall into the open floor 20:42:36 If there's nothing else, I'll close the meeting out a little early this week. 20:43:39 nothing from me 20:43:46 nothing from me 20:43:53 nothing from me 20:43:59 OK, thank you all for participating. 20:44:23 #endmeeting