15:01:46 <puiterwijk> #startmeeting Cockpit public meeting 2014-09-22
15:01:46 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 22 15:01:46 2014 UTC.  The chair is puiterwijk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:46 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:01:48 <puiterwijk> #meetingname Cockpit
15:01:48 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'cockpit'
15:01:50 <mvollmer> proposal: CI hand over status
15:01:50 <puiterwijk> #chair puiterwijk andreasn mvollmer stefw sgallagh
15:01:50 <zodbot> Current chairs: andreasn mvollmer puiterwijk sgallagh stefw
15:01:57 <puiterwijk> #topic Welcome
15:02:18 <andreasn> .hellomynameis andreasn
15:02:19 <zodbot> andreasn: andreasn 'Andreas Nilsson' <anilsson@redhat.com>
15:02:27 <puiterwijk> Okay, so this will be a very ad-hoc meeting as I had no time to collect agenda items, who's here for this meeting?
15:02:31 <puiterwijk> .hellomynameis puiterwijk
15:02:31 <zodbot> puiterwijk: puiterwijk 'Patrick Uiterwijk' <puiterwijk@redhat.com>
15:02:37 <mvollmer> .hellomynameis mvo
15:02:38 <zodbot> mvollmer: mvo 'Marius Vollmer' <marius.vollmer@gmail.com>
15:02:59 <puiterwijk> Okay, let's get started
15:03:02 <puiterwijk> #topic Fedora 21 status
15:03:08 <puiterwijk> #info Fedora 21 Alpha is GO!
15:03:23 <puiterwijk> #info Alpha release tomorrow (september 23)
15:03:25 <mvollmer> \o/
15:03:28 <andreasn> nice!
15:03:49 <puiterwijk> so let's see how many people will test it then and come back, but otherwise we still have some bugs to look into
15:03:50 <mvollmer> storaged release and selinux are not in it, I guess.
15:03:55 <mvollmer> *selinux fix
15:04:23 <puiterwijk> I don't know, but you should check. I think we're promoting RC1 to Alpha release
15:04:26 <mvollmer> #action mvollmer test selinux "known-hosts" fix and give karma
15:04:47 <mvollmer> #action mvollmer give karma to storaged 0.3.1
15:04:56 <puiterwijk> #action everyone should check F21 out after release
15:05:16 <andreasn> oh yeah, storaged, I wonder if my system allows to update to that yet
15:05:32 <andreasn> or if I ran the enable-testing command wrong, not sure
15:05:50 <andreasn> all remaining f21 bugs are collected here btw https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit/milestones/Fedora%2021%20Beta
15:05:50 <puiterwijk> okay. so now Cockpit: we have some bugs marked as Fedora 21 Beta. Are those in good shap to make the current Beta freeze of October 28?
15:06:06 <puiterwijk> s/shap/shape/
15:06:18 <mvollmer> puiterwijk, we should check that.
15:06:20 <puiterwijk> #info Fedora 21 Beta freeze at October 28
15:06:30 <mvollmer> is that the same as GA?
15:06:40 <puiterwijk> no. Beta is still one step before GA
15:06:47 <puiterwijk> err, sorry.
15:06:49 <puiterwijk> #undo
15:06:49 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by puiterwijk at 15:06:20 : Fedora 21 Beta freeze at October 28
15:07:01 <puiterwijk> #info Fedora 21 Beta freeze at October 14
15:07:13 <puiterwijk> #info Fedora 21 Beta release (scheduled) October 28
15:07:35 <puiterwijk> the final change deadline is November 18, and schedule for GA is december 2nd
15:08:04 <mvollmer> ok.
15:08:22 <mvollmer> sgallagh was saying something re beta == ga, but I might have misunderstood.
15:08:33 <puiterwijk> well, it's practically the same yeah
15:08:40 <mvollmer> the dates, I mean.
15:08:43 <puiterwijk> between beta and GA, you need a VERY serious bug to get freeze
15:08:57 <puiterwijk> ah, right, that's not what I see. I'm checking this just now in the schedule
15:09:03 <puiterwijk> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Schedule
15:09:34 <puiterwijk> with "to get freeze" (between beta and GA), I meant "to get a freeze exception"
15:09:58 <mvollmer> yes.
15:10:05 <mvollmer> so we really need to prioritize now.
15:10:07 <puiterwijk> but note that we can of course still publish updates after final change freeze, and those will become 0-day patches
15:10:24 <puiterwijk> (aka, patches available in updates on the day of release)
15:10:52 <mvollmer> the biggest issue I see is that "wheel" is too far away from being root equivalent.
15:11:08 <mvollmer> i don't think we can get that fixed fully.
15:12:03 <mvollmer> one short-term hack is to have our own setuid helper / system daemon that makes it all work.
15:12:14 <mvollmer> needs discussion whether that is worth it.
15:12:15 <puiterwijk> well, I see patches for at least 2 of the three "wheel"-related bugs in F21 beta
15:12:52 <mvollmer> yes, but there is more to fix.  check the f21-proposed label.
15:12:54 <puiterwijk> right, but that invalidates at least part of our core ideas of having the OS take care of permissions etc
15:12:57 <mvollmer> stefw, are you here?
15:13:20 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: I see, yeah
15:13:37 <mvollmer> puiterwijk, yes, but we can argue what the OS is exactly. :-)
15:13:49 <puiterwijk> hmm, fair enough I guess
15:14:23 <mvollmer> but I am not hugely in favour of such a hack.
15:14:45 <puiterwijk> yeah, me neither. But saying "root-only" is also... not ideal
15:15:38 <mvollmer> systemd is unlikely to be fixed, network manager I don't know, the rest look good.
15:16:03 <puiterwijk> okay, so maybe delay this a bit to see if stefw still pops by during the meeting, and otherwise somewhere later today or tomorrow discussing it with stefw?
15:16:22 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: unfortunate about systemd, but good that the rest is in okay shape
15:16:23 <mvollmer> yes
15:16:47 <puiterwijk> #action mvollmer puiterwijk to discuss wheel-setuid-helper with stefw
15:17:16 <puiterwijk> okay, so anything else for Fedora 21?
15:17:50 <mvollmer> maybe:
15:18:06 <mvollmer> #info integration tests run by default on Fedora 21 now
15:18:24 <puiterwijk> awesome!
15:18:44 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: so when are we enabling integration tests for Windows? :-)
15:18:46 * puiterwijk ducks
15:19:22 <mvollmer> after CentOS, Debian, Arch, Gentoo, .... :-)
15:19:47 <puiterwijk> heh :)
15:19:56 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: so you wanted to know a quick update on the CI system handover?
15:20:00 <mvollmer> yes
15:20:02 <puiterwijk> #topic CI Handover
15:20:25 <mvollmer> one blocker for me is running vm-create on files.cockpit-project.org
15:20:51 <puiterwijk> the only thing that blocked you there was the bridge stuff, right?
15:21:08 <mvollmer> i think so.
15:21:21 <puiterwijk> I found the documentation on how to do that, and I think I created the bridge (as you need to make it manually), but I can check
15:21:30 <mvollmer> qemu-kvm doesn't seem to understand "-net bridge", but I didn't check closely.
15:21:33 <puiterwijk> #action puiterwijk to check on the bridge at files.cockpit-project.org
15:21:58 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: yeah, RHEL6 qemu needs you to manually create the bridge interface
15:22:14 <puiterwijk> and then you just attach the VM to that interface
15:22:33 <mvollmer> I think the attaching doesn't work.
15:22:51 <mvollmer> puiterwijk, can you the action point to make vm-create -f cockpit succeed on f.cp.o?
15:23:12 <puiterwijk> #action puiterwijk to make vm-create -f cockpit work on files.cp.o
15:23:19 <mvollmer> thanks.
15:23:43 <mvollmer> I am sure we are talking about the same things, so let's just say directly what I want to work. :-)
15:23:54 <mvollmer> *I am not sure...
15:24:06 <puiterwijk> fair enough
15:24:22 <puiterwijk> so I am pretty sure it should work, just maybe with a slightly more complex setup
15:25:27 <puiterwijk> regarding ci.cp.o: I have finally gotten someone assigned to my ticket to move it to the RH net, and they're "considering". I'll bug them to see if they decided on anything yet
15:25:46 <puiterwijk> #action puiterwijk to bug people about ci.cp.o network move
15:26:00 <mvollmer> what do we get from that server that we don't already have from files.cp.o?
15:26:15 <puiterwijk> a server in the Red Hat network
15:26:34 <puiterwijk> which makes testing a bit easier if you want to directly connect to it
15:26:51 <mvollmer> ok, I see.
15:26:52 <puiterwijk> (for RH employees, that is)
15:27:12 <puiterwijk> other than that: nothing, files.cp.o can do everything the same
15:28:24 <mvollmer> ok.
15:28:43 <mvollmer> did we have some left over topics from last time? :-)
15:28:45 <puiterwijk> oh, and network guys haven't been able to find anything regarding net slowness of files.cp.o yet, we're guessing just routing from some nets is suboptimal
15:29:15 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: just some action items for you, but that's all for the test day :)
15:29:41 <mvollmer> ahh, that was the hangout...
15:30:00 <puiterwijk> no, there were some in the irc meetings
15:30:07 <puiterwijk> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/cockpit-devel/2014-September/000176.html
15:30:10 <puiterwijk> .tiny https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/cockpit-devel/2014-September/000176.html
15:30:10 <zodbot> puiterwijk: http://tinyurl.com/kuxa5cd
15:31:11 <mvollmer> right, Atomic status.
15:31:15 <puiterwijk> okay
15:31:17 <mvollmer> andreasn?
15:31:18 <puiterwijk> #topic Atomic status
15:31:35 <mvollmer> Not a priority for us right now.
15:31:47 <mvollmer> :-)
15:31:49 <puiterwijk> but still nice to know what happened :)
15:31:55 <andreasn> yeah, still doing research
15:32:18 <andreasn> not much feedback on the feature pages, so I take that as a silent agreement :)
15:32:21 <mvollmer> once the F21 dust settles, we can look at OS updates, for both Atomic and Fedora.
15:32:27 <andreasn> yeah
15:32:51 <andreasn> it would be nice to have that in the next major version
15:33:07 <mvollmer> but we still have the "Cockpit in a super-privileged" container hurdle for Atomic.
15:33:24 <mvollmer> (sorry, messed up the quotes)
15:33:50 <mvollmer> which means: Cockpit should be added to a Atomic host as some kind of Docker image.
15:34:09 <mvollmer> maybe not a normal Docker image, maybe not started by Docker.
15:34:23 <mvollmer> but definitely not part of the ostree.
15:35:33 <puiterwijk> right
15:35:55 <puiterwijk> so are we tracking anything what's needed for that?
15:36:08 <mvollmer> no, not with priority. :-)
15:36:39 <puiterwijk> maybe that's an idea to do?
15:36:57 <puiterwijk> or are we not that busy with that yet?
15:37:31 <mvollmer> yeah, hmm, let's say I don't find that a very exciting thing to do... :-)
15:37:54 <mvollmer> but we might need to just work through that.
15:38:06 <puiterwijk> heh, I guess I understand your point there :)
15:38:31 <mvollmer> it's a lot of yak to shave.
15:38:45 <mvollmer> but someones goota do it.
15:38:48 <mvollmer> *gotta
15:39:28 <mvollmer> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc2NgotkfWE :-)
15:39:34 <puiterwijk> right. too bad there are no yak's anywhere near my house, so I can't shave them :)
15:40:31 <mvollmer> ok, should we try a summary of what's cooking right now?
15:40:38 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: if you want to, I have some round tuits here, if that'd help?
15:40:43 <puiterwijk> http://www.brooksgroup.com/assets/2013/08/Round-tuit1.jpg
15:41:04 <mvollmer> heh, I don't get it... :)
15:41:14 <puiterwijk> mvollmer: you never send "Once I get around to it"?
15:41:28 <mvollmer> Ha! :-)
15:41:29 <puiterwijk> and now say "a round tuit" out loud :-)
15:41:41 <puiterwijk> #topic What's cooking
15:41:46 <mvollmer> yeah yeah, got it. :-)
15:41:51 <mvollmer> so.
15:41:54 <puiterwijk> :-)
15:41:59 <mvollmer> * SSO is about to be merged.
15:42:11 <mvollmer> * Next steps in modular architecture.
15:42:16 <puiterwijk> #info SSO is about to be merged
15:42:21 <puiterwijk> #info Next steps in modular architecture
15:42:25 <mvollmer> * Making wheel work better
15:42:32 <puiterwijk> #info Making wheel work better
15:42:56 <mvollmer> andreasn, anything to add?
15:43:22 <andreasn> navigation rework and smaller UI fixes is what I've been up to today
15:43:47 <andreasn> https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit-design/tree/master/navigation
15:43:52 <puiterwijk> #info Navigation rework and small UI fixes underway
15:45:12 <puiterwijk> okay, anything else?
15:45:49 <puiterwijk> #topic Open floor
15:45:49 <andreasn> nothing from me
15:46:01 <puiterwijk> Anyone has anything else to say?
15:46:46 <mvollmer> not me.
15:46:54 <puiterwijk> then I guess I'll close the meeting.
15:47:01 <puiterwijk> thanks to everyone for coming!
15:47:06 <puiterwijk> #endmeeting