15:01:37 <haraldh> #startmeeting Fedora Base Design Working Group (2015-02-20)
15:01:38 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Feb 20 15:01:37 2015 UTC.  The chair is haraldh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:38 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:01:54 * jreznik is here
15:02:16 <haraldh> ping dgilmore masta vpavlin msekleta
15:02:29 <msekleta> hello everyone!
15:03:59 <haraldh> #chair haraldh msekleta jreznik
15:03:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: haraldh jreznik msekleta
15:04:01 <haraldh> hmm
15:04:32 <haraldh> lets wait a couple of minutes for the others
15:04:37 <dgilmore> hi haraldh
15:04:47 <haraldh> #chair haraldh msekleta jreznik dgilmore
15:04:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore haraldh jreznik msekleta
15:04:57 <vpavlin> Hi
15:05:40 <haraldh> #chair haraldh msekleta jreznik dgilmore vpavlin
15:05:40 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore haraldh jreznik msekleta vpavlin
15:06:07 <haraldh> #meetingname  Fedora Base Design Working Group
15:06:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_base_design_working_group'
15:06:32 <haraldh> #topic New chairman of the Base Design Working Group
15:07:07 <haraldh> As you might know, Phil will leave Red Hat in the next couple of days.
15:07:22 <haraldh> So, we will have to find a replacement for him.
15:08:03 <haraldh> I volunteer
15:08:28 <haraldh> anyone else?
15:09:25 <haraldh> I will send out an email about this, so we can vote in the next meeting.
15:09:27 <dgilmore> haraldh: I would if i knew I could dedicate the time it deserves
15:09:36 <dgilmore> haraldh: happy to have you lead things
15:10:18 <haraldh> we also want a totally new member then
15:10:28 <dgilmore> we will
15:10:28 <haraldh> "Each voting member of the working group will confirm their continued
15:10:29 <haraldh> membership every six months. In the event that a current voting member
15:10:29 <haraldh> relinquishes their seat, the remaining voting working group members are
15:10:29 <haraldh> responsible for appointing a new voting member to fill the seat from the
15:10:29 <haraldh> active Fedora Base community via majority consensus."
15:12:11 <msekleta> I figure we should announce on fedora-devel that we are looking for new member, right?
15:12:26 <haraldh> correct
15:12:47 <jreznik> well, maybe it's time to let my place too, I'm not that good member (as base shifted a bit)
15:14:41 <haraldh> can you elaborate about the "shift" ?
15:21:20 <jreznik> haraldh: well, initial idea before we established wg was, we are going to have out of sync releases, where base would coordinate it
15:21:56 <jreznik> we're not doing it, so my taskjuggler foo (scheduling tool) is not that important and that was why phil selected me
15:22:30 <haraldh> #action haraldh will write an email to fedora-devel that we are looking for new members.
15:23:16 <haraldh> jreznik, maybe we should revive this discussion again
15:23:37 <jreznik> or maybe it's still too early
15:23:47 <haraldh> that, too
15:24:15 <dgilmore> jreznik: we can't support different lifecycles without major change and a lot of automated tooling
15:24:34 <haraldh> #topic Open Floor
15:24:38 <dgilmore> jreznik: but shipping different products at different points in time I would strongly opose
15:25:23 <jreznik> dgilmore: that's why I say it's too early to restart such discussion
15:25:33 <jreznik> and it would be just waste of time
15:25:59 <dgilmore> jreznik: well I do not think we will ever be able to support shipping different products on different schedules
15:26:09 <dgilmore> but we can end them on different days
15:26:16 <dgilmore> with the right things set up
15:26:33 <jreznik> yep
15:27:24 <haraldh> but then again in base we only rely on the shortest lifecycle
15:28:10 <haraldh> so if workstation goes on a 4 month release cycle and server on 12 month, base is 4 month
15:28:49 <dgilmore> haraldh: nope
15:29:28 <dgilmore> haraldh: we would still need to ensure that their is bugfixes in base things until server is eol
15:29:49 <dgilmore> there
15:30:36 <jreznik> btw. I hope workstation guys actually wants longer release cycle than shorter
15:30:50 <dgilmore> haraldh: base feature development would be over when the releases ship
15:31:05 <dgilmore> jreznik: ive heard talk of 7 months
15:31:19 <dgilmore> just enoiugh time to switch over to the next release
15:31:47 <dgilmore> where server is wanting 19-25 months
15:31:59 <dgilmore> cloud I am not sure
15:32:20 <jreznik> dgilmore: cloud would be probably the fastest moving, they are pretty agile there
15:32:31 <dgilmore> jreznik: right
15:32:46 <jreznik> for ws, I heard even more than 7 months as the plan is to have stable devel ws
15:33:12 <jreznik> you can never make people happy even if you would release more than one product with different cycles
15:33:29 <dgilmore> i am sure
15:35:06 <jreznik> I still somehow like the idea of having too maintained releases but with different rules
15:35:09 <jreznik> for updates
15:36:11 <dgilmore> that would be a lot of work. it would need a lot of tooling and process work for enforcement
15:36:17 <jreznik> fn as faster moving, fn-1 as slow moving... not "almost no updates allowed for both"
15:37:17 <mclasen> haraldh: 4 month release cycle ?
15:37:31 <haraldh> mclasen, just an example :)
15:42:54 <dgilmore> anything else?
15:43:18 <dgilmore> vpavlin: where is the docker base image at?
15:44:27 <vpavlin> dgilmore: sorry, I am confused - what do you mean now?
15:44:46 <dgilmore> vpavlin: what is the current status?
15:45:47 <vpavlin> we have filed a PR on docker/library for new version of rawhide, but tianon is against my changes (which I did to make systemd work)
15:45:55 <vpavlin> https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/497#issuecomment-74945551
15:46:41 <vpavlin> well..I also wanted to change f21 image Dockerfile a bit so that systemd works for both
15:47:26 <vpavlin> dgilmore: Are image building successfully in Koji again? (I haven't checked that for few days..)
15:47:49 <dgilmore> docker really needs to get an api to update the registry
15:48:03 <dgilmore> vpavlin: last nights f22 base image built
15:48:29 <dgilmore> rawhide is likely to fail for awhile
15:48:47 <dgilmore> we are undergoing some pretty major changes in process for f23
15:49:04 <vpavlin> ok
15:49:12 <vpavlin> I'll chceck f22 then
15:50:53 <dgilmore> I have tested docker on armv7hl
15:51:07 <dgilmore> but we do not have tooling to make base images :(
15:52:13 <dgilmore> vpavlin: for f22 will we just make the base image>
15:52:15 <dgilmore> ?
15:52:24 <dgilmore> or is there some extra images we want?
15:53:26 <vpavlin> I think we can "release" the rest under Fedora-Dockerfiles for now
15:53:44 <dgilmore> okay
15:54:09 <dgilmore> anything we do not build as part of the Fedora compose process can not be called Fedora
15:54:18 <dgilmore> but has to be labeled as a remix
15:54:38 <dgilmore> including replacing fedora-release and fedora-logos
15:55:54 <dgilmore> not sure if that matters much
15:56:08 <dgilmore> I do not totally understand how Dockerfiles work
15:56:18 <vpavlin> All other images should be based on the Fedora base image
15:56:42 <dgilmore> sure, but if we do not make it, it can not be called Fedora
15:56:45 <vpavlin> You specify base image which is basically a rootfs that is just extended
15:57:17 <dgilmore> vpavlin: is it something users do? or is it done by someone in the middle?
15:59:01 <vpavlin> dgilmore: both - we do that in https://github.com/fedora-cloud/Fedora-Dockerfiles, users can also do that
15:59:21 <dgilmore> vpavlin: so users doing it for their own use is fine
15:59:34 <dgilmore> vpavlin: but others doing it and calling it fedora is not
15:59:48 <dgilmore> vpavlin: even if those others is you
15:59:57 <vpavlin> hmm
16:00:09 <dgilmore> vpavlin: if you do it, it has to be called a remix
16:00:33 <vpavlin> dgilmore: Interesting
16:01:16 <vpavlin> I think scollier is maintainer of that repo
16:01:20 <dgilmore> vpavlin: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd=Legal/TrademarkGuidelines#Copies_of_unmodified_Fedora_media
16:01:41 <dgilmore> vpavlin: it comes down to trademark rights
16:02:07 <dgilmore> vpavlin: it can only be called fedora if produced by fedora releng as part of the compose process
16:02:15 <mclasen> obvious way out: join the fedora rel-eng team...
16:02:45 <vpavlin> mclasen: That probably wouldn't help - Fedora-Dockerfiles are built in Docker Hub
16:02:58 <vpavlin> So not as part of the compose process
16:03:18 <dgilmore> vpavlin: we can produce the images
16:04:53 <dgilmore> vpavlin: anyway, I think we need to talk more about this, and possibly engage legal
16:05:02 <dgilmore> vpavlin: we likely need to ask legal
16:05:12 <dgilmore> they may turn around and say it is fine
16:05:35 <dgilmore> so long as it is unmodified fedora provided software
16:06:14 <vpavlin> which it is
16:06:39 <dgilmore> but you do not get trademark use rights today
16:06:50 <dgilmore> and you need to
16:07:09 <dgilmore> the way to get the rights to the trademark today is to have it built as part of fedora
16:08:58 <vpavlin> ok
16:11:05 <dgilmore> vpavlin: can we setup a time to go over how it all works next week?
16:11:32 <vpavlin> Sure, I'll be on pto thu and fri
16:12:09 <dgilmore> okay. lets aim for early in the weke then
16:15:31 <vpavlin> I am probably fine with any of Mon, Tue, Wed, but it would be good to have Scott there also as he maintains those Dockerfiles
16:15:42 <dgilmore> okay
16:16:02 <dgilmore> vpavlin: I will try set up a meeting for the three of us
16:16:18 <vpavlin> thanks
16:20:19 <dgilmore> anything else for the meeting?
16:22:19 <dgilmore> #endmeeting