16:30:23 <jlebon> #startmeeting fedora_coreos_meeting
16:30:23 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Feb 17 16:30:23 2021 UTC.
16:30:23 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:30:23 <zodbot> The chair is jlebon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:30:23 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:30:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_coreos_meeting'
16:31:06 <jbrooks> .hello jasonbrooks
16:31:07 <zodbot> jbrooks: jasonbrooks 'Jason Brooks' <jbrooks@redhat.com>
16:31:36 <jlebon> #chair jbrooks
16:31:36 <zodbot> Current chairs: jbrooks jlebon
16:32:09 <miabbott> .hello miabbott
16:32:10 <zodbot> miabbott: miabbott 'Micah Abbott' <miabbott@redhat.com>
16:32:37 <jlebon> #chair miabbott
16:32:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: jbrooks jlebon miabbott
16:32:43 <davdunc> .hello2
16:32:44 <zodbot> davdunc: davdunc 'David Duncan' <davdunc@amazon.com>
16:33:03 <jlebon> #chair davdunc
16:33:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: davdunc jbrooks jlebon miabbott
16:33:17 <jlebon> hi all! :)
16:33:22 <jlebon> let's give it a few more minutes
16:33:28 <davdunc> :D
16:33:34 <bgilbert> .hello2
16:33:35 <zodbot> bgilbert: bgilbert 'Benjamin Gilbert' <bgilbert@backtick.net>
16:33:37 <jlebon> #chair bgilbert
16:33:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: bgilbert davdunc jbrooks jlebon miabbott
16:34:21 <travier> .hello siosm
16:34:21 <zodbot> travier: siosm 'Timothée Ravier' <travier@redhat.com>
16:35:14 <jlebon> #chair siosm
16:35:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: bgilbert davdunc jbrooks jlebon miabbott siosm
16:35:30 <jlebon> ok cool, let's start! :)
16:35:36 <jlebon> #topic Action items from last meeting
16:36:03 <jlebon> jlebon to add initrd check and journal entry and/or motd bgilbert to investigate FCCT check travier to file tracker ticket to discuss platform support tiers PanGoat to file a tracker ticket to discuss a process for inviting contributors to platform support
16:36:09 <jlebon> yuck
16:36:11 <jlebon> let me try that again
16:36:18 <jlebon> - jlebon to add initrd check and journal entry and/or motd
16:36:20 <travier> :)
16:36:22 <jlebon> - bgilbert to investigate FCCT check
16:36:26 <jlebon> - travier to file tracker ticket to discuss platform support tiers
16:36:31 <jlebon> - PanGoat to file a tracker ticket to discuss a process for inviting contributors to platform support
16:36:54 <travier> ticket filed: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/738
16:36:58 <bgilbert> #action bgilbert to investigate FCCT check for too-small rootfs
16:37:09 <jlebon> #info jlebon started work on the initrd check and motd warning for minimum space in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/850
16:37:09 <travier> for platform support tiers
16:37:16 <jlebon> #info travier filed https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/738
16:37:39 <bgilbert> #info PanGoat filed https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/739
16:37:47 <jlebon> bgilbert: thanks, was looking for that :)
16:38:16 <jlebon> wanted to discuss the space issue a bit more, but we can do that later
16:38:41 <jlebon> ok, lots of tickets today, many of which were carried over from last week
16:38:54 <jlebon> #topic Add `branched` stream
16:38:57 <jlebon> #link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/743
16:39:29 <lorbus> .hello2
16:39:30 <zodbot> lorbus: lorbus 'Christian Glombek' <cglombek@redhat.com>
16:39:35 <jlebon> F34 has now branched from rawhide. So the rawhide stream should now be tracking f35 (it doesn't yet but will soon)
16:39:47 <travier> Shouldn't we start having next as F34?
16:39:57 <jlebon> we need to keep tracking f34 though. so i'm going to start a branched stream
16:40:13 <jlebon> travier: it's still really early though
16:40:38 <cyberpear> why not just bump next?
16:40:44 <travier> But what is in next right now that differs from testing?
16:40:45 <jlebon> in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/blob/master/Design.md#release-streams, we discussed moving next over when bodhi is activated
16:41:23 <bgilbert> we want users to feel comfortable running next in production, so it shouldn't be too too unstable
16:41:35 <travier> hum, indeed. Do we know when bodhi will be activated?
16:41:43 <jlebon> yes, one sec
16:41:57 <jlebon> oh
16:42:02 <jlebon> 2021-02-23
16:42:03 <bgilbert> looks like next Tuesday: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-34/f-34-key-tasks.html
16:42:05 <jlebon> that's next week
16:42:42 <jlebon> hmm, a bit concerned about that
16:42:45 <cyberpear> ok so next is just a newer kernel until bodhi
16:43:22 <jlebon> bgilbert: i wonder if bodhi activation isn't the right event to key off from
16:43:28 <bgilbert> AFAIK we never implemented the kernel part
16:43:41 <bgilbert> jlebon: feels too early?
16:43:48 <jlebon> yeah
16:43:53 <jberkus> howdy
16:44:03 <jlebon> perhaps it should be beta release instead?
16:44:06 <bgilbert> jlebon: we can move it
16:44:07 <jlebon> #chair jberkus
16:44:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: bgilbert davdunc jberkus jbrooks jlebon miabbott siosm
16:44:18 <jlebon> jberkus: hi! long time no see :)
16:44:23 <bgilbert> it was kind of arbitrary
16:44:37 * davdunc waves to jberkus
16:45:04 <jlebon> what do folks think about waiting until beta to move next over?
16:45:11 <jlebon> #chair darkmuggle PanGoat
16:45:11 <zodbot> Current chairs: PanGoat bgilbert darkmuggle davdunc jberkus jbrooks jlebon miabbott siosm
16:45:14 <PanGoat> .hello jaimelm
16:45:15 <zodbot> PanGoat: jaimelm 'Jaime Magiera' <jaimelm@umich.edu>
16:45:17 <travier> Beta release sounds good. How costly on CI are mechanical streams?
16:45:44 <jlebon> not very. we'd make it the same as rawhide: once daily only
16:46:00 <jlebon> i'd like to pear down also on the number of artifacts we produce for mechanical streams
16:46:21 <jlebon> like, it's highly unlikely anyone is testing the rawhide stream on IBM Cloud
16:46:38 <jlebon> and if there's requests, we can always add back
16:46:45 <travier> then it's a +1 from me if you feel it's ok to create a temporary branched stream
16:46:55 <travier> agree with less artifacts too
16:47:24 <cyberpear> I'd say just bump next unless we know of failures
16:47:32 <travier> you can always boot from latest next and rebase to rawhide. You won't get more updated ignition anyway
16:48:15 <jlebon> cyberpear: except right now there hasn't been enough exposure to even know of failures
16:48:35 <jberkus> IBM staff aren't testing it?
16:48:57 <jlebon> cyberpear: not a lot of baking has happened. it branched from rawhide last week
16:49:21 <jlebon> jberkus: rawhide? i doubt it
16:50:37 <jlebon> ok let me make a proposal
16:51:04 <jberkus> jlebon: seems like something they ought to do, but if they're not, well ...
16:52:05 <jlebon> #proposed We will add a branched stream which tracks Fedora 34 until the next stream moves over. We will move the switchover for next to be the beta release.
16:52:54 <jlebon> the branched stream was always planned. we just didn't really get to it til this release cycle :)
16:53:27 <jlebon> ack, nack?
16:53:31 <PanGoat> ack
16:53:32 <bgilbert> +1
16:53:46 <lorbus> +1
16:54:02 <jlebon> #agreed We will add a branched stream which tracks Fedora 34 until the next stream moves over. We will move the switchover for next to be the beta release.
16:54:03 <davdunc> +1
16:54:07 <jlebon> #chair lorbus
16:54:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: PanGoat bgilbert darkmuggle davdunc jberkus jbrooks jlebon lorbus miabbott siosm
16:54:13 <jlebon> lorbus: sorry, missed you :)
16:54:22 <travier> +1
16:54:22 <lorbus> np :)
16:54:25 <jlebon> ok let's move on
16:54:31 <cyberpear> once next is bumped, would branched follow next?
16:54:37 <jlebon> #topic New Package Request: iproute-tc
16:54:43 <jlebon> #link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/742
16:54:45 <jberkus> +1
16:54:59 <jlebon> miabbott: did you want to speak to that?
16:55:11 <miabbott> I can give it a try
16:55:20 <jlebon> cyberpear: we'd probably turn it off
16:57:00 <miabbott> RHCOS/OCP is looking to expand into more Telco deployments and those kinds of deployments want to be able to do traffic limiting/QoS on host interfaces via `tc`
16:57:28 <miabbott> While we could just make the change to RHCOS proper, I wanted to get the community feedback about including it in FCOS first
16:57:35 <jlebon> hmm
16:57:39 <jlebon> it's already in FCOS
16:57:45 <cyberpear> +1 to shipping iproute-tc based on the ticket info and no extra deps
16:57:46 <jlebon> # rpm -q iproute-tc
16:57:47 <jlebon> iproute-tc-5.9.0-1.fc33.x86_64
16:58:13 <davdunc> well that's odd.
16:58:21 <miabbott> well, then i guess the original reporter (nor i) didn't do their due diligence
16:58:38 <jlebon> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/blob/75c4b1049e4005a7a0deb33c1965bcfc3617b1a4/manifests/fedora-coreos-base.yaml#L137
16:58:49 <davdunc> better to ask and then have the additional discussion miabbott
16:58:58 <davdunc> IMO
16:59:20 <jlebon> # rpm -q --whatrecommends iproute-tc
16:59:20 <jlebon> iproute-5.9.0-1.fc33.x86_64
16:59:32 <walters> blah, at some point we need to try having rhcos actually inherit more of FCOS by default
16:59:34 <jlebon> it survived the great recommends prune of 2019
16:59:36 <jlebon> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/commit/d094721590b6339cdd4ced22497628943667ffea
16:59:44 <cyberpear> now we can document "why" we want it
17:00:29 <jlebon> cyberpear: yeah agreed
17:00:48 <davdunc> what about walters discussion points?
17:00:57 <miabbott> so i guess this is turning into a "fix RHCOS to include iproute-tc" problem
17:01:01 <walters> sort of moot I think
17:01:06 <travier> :D
17:01:08 <bgilbert> (IMO if a system has /usr/sbin/iptables, it should probably have tc as well)
17:01:14 <bgilbert> sounds like we can move on?
17:01:18 <miabbott> agreed
17:01:20 <jlebon> yup
17:01:27 <davdunc> sounds right.
17:01:30 <jlebon> somebody press the "That Was Easy" button
17:01:40 <miabbott> i'll make a comment on the ticket to the effect that it is already included
17:01:58 <jlebon> #topic Discuss enabling rpm-ostree cliwrap
17:02:01 <jlebon> #link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/730
17:02:01 <travier> :)
17:02:09 <walters> extracting a `networking.yaml` would work *except* nfs-utils-coreos is only Fedora, arg
17:02:18 <jlebon> walters: want to talk about that one?
17:02:21 <jlebon> #chair walters
17:02:21 <zodbot> Current chairs: PanGoat bgilbert darkmuggle davdunc jberkus jbrooks jlebon lorbus miabbott siosm walters
17:02:40 <walters> ah yep the goal is basically to wrap existing CLI tools to help admins transition to an rpm-ostree based system
17:03:13 <walters> initial goal is avoiding accidental damage, e.g. running `dracut` as root right now just doesn't work at all
17:03:47 <darkmuggle> I think its a good idea, generally.
17:03:54 <jlebon> #chair darkmuggle
17:03:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: PanGoat bgilbert darkmuggle davdunc jberkus jbrooks jlebon lorbus miabbott siosm walters
17:03:55 <walters> there's also an `rpm` wrapper, longer term I'd actually like to add e.g. a `yum/dnf` frontend too
17:04:20 <walters> a simple way to think of it is to have the traditional tools consistently participate in the transaction system
17:05:06 <jlebon> i think overall i lean towards turning it on, but i wanted to bring something up: to me, this seems to be about how we want to position rpm-ostree and rpm-ostree-based variants in the larger ecosystem
17:05:19 <jlebon> (or even just OSTree-based really)
17:06:06 <jlebon> the itch to scratch is to make these tools be more compatible with our model
17:06:34 <jlebon> there's different ways to resolve that without having to wrap their CLIs
17:07:10 <jlebon> there's much harder ways, and much easier ways :)
17:07:57 <jlebon> e.g. we could have code that lives in dracut which detects OSTree systems
17:09:13 <jlebon> and maybe in the future there's some path by which the same dracut CLI *does* natively work
17:09:44 <walters> probably yes (although this gets into the tricky topic of ostree vs rpm-ostree, all the initramfs generation stuff lives in rpm-ostree today and there's not actually a very well defined way to detect the difference client side today...hmm, should fix that)
17:09:49 <travier> hum, but don't we want to have a cli compatible interface but call the rpm-ostree commands behind it?
17:10:46 <travier> in that dracut is not supposed to know how rpm-ostree uses it. Feels recursive
17:10:48 <jlebon> travier: right, this requires teaching dracut about rpm-ostree
17:11:15 <jlebon> anyway, i realize this is a much harder endeavour
17:11:44 <darkmuggle> in principle I agree with the sediments about teaching other tools to understand rpm-ostree
17:12:14 <walters> i think 73.2% of the value is "as a Fedora-derivative user who does a web search for 'how do I change kernel arguments'" and I land on a web page that talks about `grubby` you get something other than either "command not found" or an error (or like `dracut` it just does the wrong thing)
17:12:23 <miabbott> cliwrap seems like a reasonable bridge until we get to ostree/rpm-ostree nirvana
17:12:26 <darkmuggle> but I think that until then, there is an expectation difference today where the tools do not.
17:12:45 <darkmuggle> what miabbott said :)
17:13:09 <travier> walters: agree here. Having a simple message pointing to the right tool would already be good progress even if we don't auto-convert the cli args
17:13:38 <jlebon> agree with all of the above :)
17:14:10 <walters> a great case that crosses all of this is what you get if you web search for "fedora nvidia driver"
17:14:23 <walters> (and in the days of machine learning and GPUs in the cloud, is relevant for FCOS too)
17:14:41 <jlebon> bgilbert: any thoughts?
17:15:21 <bgilbert> not especially :-)
17:15:31 <jlebon> ok, let me make a proposal
17:15:45 <bgilbert> I don't think I want to optimize for "fedora nvidia driver" in particular though :-P
17:15:52 <miabbott> if cliwrap is enabled; is it worth a motd entry explaining the behavior change?
17:16:17 <jlebon> #proposed We will turn on cliwrap in FCOS and add documentation for this behaviour, including a list of the binaries wrapped
17:16:51 <bgilbert> miabbott: probably coreos-status rather than motd?
17:16:52 <walters> miabbott: that feels like it generalizes in a motd that links to our release notes
17:17:26 <walters> or there's another idea, we could make this a Fedora Change
17:17:32 <travier> guess we need a place where we can put some informal release notes, like a blog? 😅
17:17:53 <travier> walters: nice idea. Would be for Silverblue and IoT too?
17:17:55 <jlebon> walters: that would be interesting
17:18:28 <bgilbert> I think this meets the coreos-status bar
17:18:33 <bgilbert> potentially breaking change for someone
17:18:36 <jlebon> blaze the trail for FCOS Fedora Changes
17:18:38 <bgilbert> no?
17:18:38 <walters> travier: so...my PoV on this is it defaults to off upstream, turning it on is a manifest change.
17:19:02 <jlebon> bgilbert: yeah agreed
17:19:13 <bgilbert> is the FCOS Fedora Change process ready yet?  I was under the impression that it would require some development
17:19:39 <miabbott> i guess i am not picky about where the use of cliwrap in FCOS is documented, as long as it is easily discoverable
17:19:59 <jlebon> bgilbert: that's my understanding as well, though it'd probably help development if there's a guinea pig already available
17:20:03 <bgilbert> sure
17:20:35 <travier> I guess this would be a good cross rpm-ostree change but that would make it harder so might no be a good idea in the end
17:20:39 <jlebon> anyone opposed to trying to make this a Change Proposal?
17:20:45 <travier> and changes for f34 are already locked I think
17:20:56 <travier> so FCOS change is good
17:21:34 <walters> well...it's not clear to me that we need to *block* on saying "this change applies across f34" if indeed it's only FCOS to start
17:22:07 <bgilbert> I understood jlebon to say that this would be an FCOS-specific Change proposal
17:23:04 <jlebon> ahh ok, i misunderstood then
17:23:20 <travier> agree, let's make it FCOS only
17:23:21 <walters> though the argument for having this be Fedora-wide is it does kind of impact the owners of the wrapped tools, so perhaps we should make it a f35 change across all rpm-ostree systems
17:23:22 <jlebon> are we saying turn on for FCOS now, but Change proposal for FSB and IoT?
17:23:34 <travier> walters: +1 for that too
17:23:42 <walters> can we just turn it on in `next` even?
17:23:47 <jlebon> that'd be my preference as well
17:23:56 <walters> or yeah, that
17:23:57 <jlebon> yeah, we can do that
17:24:33 <jlebon> ok, let me make a new proposal
17:26:20 <jlebon> #proposed We will turn on cliwrap in the FCOS `next` stream to gain feedback. We will document it, and send an email to coreos-status. We will file an f35 Change before turning it on on all streams (as well as possibly other rpm-ostree variants like FSB and IoT).
17:26:41 <walters> SGTM
17:27:19 <jberkus> hey since we're almost out of time:  did anyone submit a proposal to ContainerPlumbing.org?
17:27:42 <jlebon> jberkus: see https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/727
17:27:42 <jberkus> when I checked 48h ago, there were zero CoreOS proposals
17:27:49 <walters> I think my goal was just to have this turned on in a place a human could run it (i.e. not just rpm-ostree CI) since it's ready for that level of testing, but doesn't need to ship to everyone right now
17:28:10 <jlebon> ack/nack for anyone else?
17:28:26 <bgilbert> jlebon: wfm
17:28:44 <jlebon> ok, will roll with two acks :)
17:28:47 <jlebon> #agreed We will turn on cliwrap in the FCOS `next` stream to gain feedback. We will document it, and send an email to coreos-status. We will file an f35 Change before turning it on on all streams (as well as possibly other rpm-ostree variants like FSB and IoT).
17:28:51 <jberkus> aha, good
17:29:08 <jlebon> ok, let's go to open floor for the few minutes left
17:29:13 <jlebon> #topic Open Floor
17:29:28 <jlebon> jberkus: you should see a submission from travier and cverna
17:30:11 <jlebon> anyone wanted to bring up anything quickly?
17:30:20 <travier> +1 for the cliwrap proposal
17:30:26 <miabbott> I got something for the open floor
17:30:41 <jlebon> miabbott: shoot
17:30:52 <miabbott> There are some internships in Fedora being lined up via Outreachy; we may have the opportunity to get one to work on Fedora CoreOS
17:31:09 <miabbott> I started a discussion internally at RHT, but need to move it into the open
17:31:10 <travier> jberkus: I submitted a proposal for the containerplubming days. Did you get one from me?
17:31:44 <miabbott> So I am trying to source some ideas for work that we could give an intern that they could tackle for 3 months
17:32:11 <miabbott> jbrooks in particular pinged me on this
17:32:28 <walters> outreachy interns vary in skill/background right?  Some might be artists, some might be engineers, is that right?
17:32:40 <miabbott> Exactly
17:32:59 <jberkus> travier: checking
17:33:05 <miabbott> "Outreachy internship projects may include programming, user experience, documentation, illustration, graphical design, data science, project marketing, user advocacy, or community event planning."
17:33:49 <miabbott> I'll file a ticket to track ideas for this, so we can collate them in a single place
17:33:53 <bgilbert> miabbott: +1
17:33:53 <jbrooks> +1
17:33:57 <jbrooks> thanks Micah
17:33:58 <jlebon> miabbott: that's a good idea
17:34:04 <miabbott> I think we have about a week to come up with something
17:34:23 <jberkus> travier: the Matrix one?  got it
17:34:38 <travier> jberkus: yes
17:34:56 <jlebon> i feel like engineering tasks we have lots of, and there's nothing wrong with having an internship for that, though might be a good opportunity for any non-engineering things we want to do
17:35:14 <jlebon> (because we're not as good at those)
17:35:33 <jbrooks> We need to think in terms of what we can mentor for, too
17:36:05 <jberkus> yah, although if you can find a go or C student, would be nice to train someone up
17:36:07 <jbrooks> So maybe an engineering thing would be a better fit, since that's the strength
17:36:10 <jlebon> #action miabbott to file a ticket for Outreachy project ideas
17:36:28 <miabbott> ack
17:36:48 <jberkus> particularly think about any CLI things someone could work on
17:37:34 <jlebon> ack, thanks jberkus jbrooks
17:37:40 <jlebon> ok, anything else for open floor?
17:37:59 <jlebon> we're over the hour, so will close in 60s otherwise :)
17:37:59 <miabbott> thanks jberkus; i am definitely wary of scoping any tasks appropriately for complexity, time, and available mentors
17:38:07 <jbrooks> I got the twitter creds for CoreOS, I'm going to run the poll we discussed previously
17:38:41 <travier> jbrooks: that's a large topic for such a late time in the meeting :)
17:38:44 <jlebon> jbrooks: heh waited to the last minute to squeeze that in
17:38:59 <jbrooks> Heh, sorry, I have mixed meetings going on
17:39:00 <travier> maybe we should discuss that next week? or was something already agreed?
17:39:10 <jbrooks> I can wait -- we did agree to run a poll already though
17:39:11 <jlebon> i don't recall either
17:39:32 <jlebon> ack ok, in that case thanks for letting us know!
17:39:37 <jbrooks> A few weeks back
17:39:50 <jlebon> ok, closing :)
17:39:56 <jlebon> #endmeeting