17:02:34 <jberkus> #startmeeting fedora_atomic_wg
17:02:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 14 17:02:34 2016 UTC.  The chair is jberkus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:02:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:34 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_atomic_wg'
17:02:55 <jberkus> #topic Roll Call
17:02:59 <jberkus> .hello jberkus
17:03:00 <zodbot> jberkus: jberkus 'Josh Berkus' <josh@agliodbs.com>
17:03:02 <trishnag> .hello trishnag
17:03:03 <zodbot> trishnag: trishnag 'Trishna Guha' <trishnaguha17@gmail.com>
17:03:06 <jbrooks> .hello jasonbrooks
17:03:09 <zodbot> jbrooks: jasonbrooks 'Jason Brooks' <JBROOKS@REDHAT.COM>
17:03:29 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
17:03:30 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
17:03:50 <dustymabe> .hello dustymabe
17:03:51 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dustymabe@redhat.com>
17:04:10 <dustymabe> i currently am on two video calls and an IRC meeting
17:04:13 <dustymabe> :)
17:04:32 <tflink> .hello tflink
17:04:32 <jberkus> #chair dustymabe trishnag jbrooks maxamillion
17:04:32 <zodbot> Current chairs: dustymabe jberkus jbrooks maxamillion trishnag
17:04:33 <zodbot> tflink: tflink 'Tim Flink' <tflink@redhat.com>
17:04:40 <jberkus> #chair dustymabe trishnag jbrooks maxamillion tflink
17:04:40 <zodbot> Current chairs: dustymabe jberkus jbrooks maxamillion tflink trishnag
17:04:43 <roshi> .hello roshi
17:04:44 <zodbot> roshi: roshi 'Mike Ruckman' <mruckman@redhat.com>
17:04:49 <jberkus> #chair dustymabe trishnag jbrooks maxamillion tflink roshi
17:04:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: dustymabe jberkus jbrooks maxamillion roshi tflink trishnag
17:04:50 <dustymabe> roshi!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17:04:58 <maxamillion> roshi!!!!!
17:04:59 <roshi> :D how's it going?
17:05:02 <maxamillion> roshi: are you back???
17:05:11 <roshi> almost
17:05:16 <maxamillion> roshi: oh man, so close ;)
17:05:21 <dustymabe> you have been missed!
17:05:21 <roshi> just checking in, and it was good timing for the meeting :)
17:05:35 <roshi> glad to hear it :) I've missed you all as well
17:05:49 * jberkus doesn't know roshi
17:06:13 <trishnag> same here jberkus :)
17:06:17 <maxamillion> roshi: we look forward to your return :)
17:06:21 <dustymabe> jberkus: all you need to know is that roshi is awesome, he helps out with cloud/atomic WG and will be back soon
17:06:24 <bowlofeggs> .hello bowlofeggs
17:06:25 <trishnag> hi roshi
17:06:25 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <randy@electronsweatshop.com>
17:06:30 <jberkus> #chair dustymabe trishnag jbrooks maxamillion tflink roshi bowlofeggs
17:06:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs dustymabe jberkus jbrooks maxamillion roshi tflink trishnag
17:06:38 <maxamillion> roshi is a long time awesome fedora community member who has been on sabatical
17:06:44 <dustymabe> #info roshi is awesome, he helps out with cloud/atomic WG and will be back soon
17:06:58 <walters> .hello walters
17:06:59 <zodbot> walters: walters 'Colin Walters' <walters@redhat.com>
17:07:06 <jberkus> #topic FDLIBS
17:07:13 <jberkus> #chair dustymabe trishnag jbrooks maxamillion tflink roshi bowlofeggs walters
17:07:13 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs dustymabe jberkus jbrooks maxamillion roshi tflink trishnag walters
17:07:23 <roshi> hey jberkus and trishnag :)
17:07:36 <roshi> I'm a QA guy that's been on a bit of a hiatus
17:07:37 <jberkus> I wanted to open by congratuating maxamillion and the team on getting the layered image build service launched
17:07:44 <jberkus> roshi: QA++
17:07:52 <jberkus> we could use you
17:07:56 <roshi> thanks for the kind words dustymabe maxamillion :D
17:07:59 <maxamillion> jberkus: thanks :D
17:08:17 <maxamillion> roshi: well deserved, looking forward to your triumphant return! :)
17:08:38 <jberkus> I also want to enlist the members of this group in (a) building containers for the service, and (b) taking a hard look at the guidelines/requirements
17:08:43 <jberkus> since we'll be enforcing them
17:09:11 <jberkus> maxamillion: anything else on FDLIBS?
17:09:31 <jbrooks> I've got my first request in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421
17:09:51 <bowlofeggs> yeah maxamillion++ for getting the build service all the way to prod!
17:09:51 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: Karma for maxamillion changed to 9 (for the f25 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:09:58 <jberkus> yah, and matt submitted one too
17:10:23 <jberkus> we're going to need a process for approving contianers; maxamillion, is there currently a specified workflow for that?  I'm not an RPM packager ...
17:11:19 <maxamillion> :D
17:11:32 <maxamillion> jberkus: yes, it was in the announcement email I sent out
17:11:59 <jberkus> well, what the announcement said was "same as RPMs" .... we'll need people to volunteer to take roles
17:12:07 <trishnag> maxamillion++
17:12:08 <zodbot> trishnag: Karma for maxamillion changed to 10 (for the f25 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:12:44 <maxamillion> \o/
17:12:50 <maxamillion> jberkus: what do you mean?
17:12:57 <jberkus> oh, I see ... I was just looking at the guidelines
17:13:02 <jberkus> there's another page for the review
17:13:11 <roshi> once I get up to speed again, I'll vet containers
17:13:13 <maxamillion> jberkus: correct
17:13:13 <misc> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Container:Review_Process
17:13:29 <jberkus> maxamillion: so we need people to be reviewers
17:13:40 <jberkus> maxamillion: what Fedora project perms does a reviewer need?
17:13:59 <misc> packager, iirc
17:14:11 <jberkus> how many of our group have that?
17:14:41 * misc has
17:14:53 <jberkus> roshi: yay
17:15:07 * maxamillion has
17:15:11 * roshi doesn't remember if he's a full packager or not
17:15:57 <jbrooks> misc is helping me (thanks misc!)
17:16:27 <jberkus> maxamillion: there doesn't appear to be a separate queue for containers needing review
17:16:30 <jberkus> is that correct?
17:16:36 <maxamillion> I'm also a packager sponsor so if anyone would like to become a packager, please feel free to ping me
17:16:54 <dustymabe> roshi: if you don't have full packager, bowlofeggs can help
17:16:54 <maxamillion> jberkus: correct, not at this time ... there's a not about this in the doc
17:16:57 <dustymabe> he can sponsor
17:17:09 <roshi> sgtm
17:17:31 <jberkus> maxamillion: hmmm ... realistically we're going to need a way to pull out the containers pending
17:17:40 <jberkus> right now there's 379 new tickets
17:18:35 <maxamillion> jberkus: I don't disagree
17:18:45 <jberkus> is that a ticket already?
17:18:53 <maxamillion> jberkus: it is not
17:19:04 <jberkus> ok, I'll open one ... which project?
17:19:27 <misc> we also need some automation, on what is gonna happen with the first approved package after the approval have been given ?
17:19:33 <jbrooks> We could keep track of open container reviews in our pagure, maybe
17:19:51 <misc> (like I did all I could (except nitpicking on source code) for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421 )
17:20:15 <roshi> we still have internet faeries that do things for us, right?
17:20:17 <dustymabe> is it really on this WG to gate all container reviews?
17:20:25 <jberkus> dustymabe: according to the current docs, yes
17:20:26 <roshi> that's where I get all my automation :p
17:20:30 <dustymabe> I don't see that as something that is sustainable
17:20:34 <maxamillion> misc: what do you mean automation?
17:20:34 <dustymabe> at all
17:20:45 <maxamillion> misc: this should be a request to pkgdb just like for rpms, but in the docker namespace
17:20:49 <jberkus> or to nominate a group to do reviews
17:20:58 <roshi> dustymabe: we'd probably have to have a "core" set of containers and that's it
17:21:02 <misc> maxamillion: that's a script that do that, no ?
17:21:07 <maxamillion> misc: no
17:21:09 <jberkus> I think we should start it though so that we can work out the kinks in the process
17:21:17 <roshi> and scale it with resources as time goes on
17:21:19 <maxamillion> misc: to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been for some time
17:21:25 <dustymabe> yeah, i don't disagree that we should have a heavy hand in the beginning
17:21:38 <dustymabe> but think of the reviews that are going to build up over time
17:21:44 <jberkus> dustymabe: no question
17:22:05 <dustymabe> TBH I don't really have a lot of time for doing reviews of containers :(
17:22:29 <dustymabe> unless they represent some sort of strategic path for us, i.e. the k8s container does
17:22:34 <misc> they are much faster than package review
17:22:47 <misc> like there is not enough guideline to take time :)
17:23:15 <dustymabe> misc: but should you build the container and make sure it works?
17:23:31 <jberkus> yeah, eventually I can see asking Fedora to create a separate container-packager permission
17:23:31 <misc> dustymabe: mhh, technically yes
17:23:41 <misc> (but now, I didn't :/ )
17:23:41 <jberkus> but not right now
17:24:14 <roshi> just because I'm behind, can someone point me to notes when we decided that Fedora should be gating any containers in the first place?
17:24:27 <misc> maybe we can already say "let's see how it go with 5 containers" and see maintainance, the process, etc ?
17:24:33 <dustymabe> k
17:24:36 <roshi> I presume we're going to be running a docker registry or something?
17:24:41 <jberkus> roshi: http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2016/12/announcing-fedora-layered-image-builds/
17:24:49 <maxamillion> roshi: already are
17:24:53 <maxamillion> roshi: registry.fedoraproject.org
17:24:56 * roshi heads off to read
17:25:00 <roshi> we are?
17:25:04 <roshi> oh snap
17:25:07 <maxamillion> did anyone read the announcement I wrote?
17:25:12 <jberkus> ;-)
17:25:17 <roshi> that's some work in and of itself
17:25:36 <maxamillion> like ... not to be rude, but seriously everyone has asked me a question so far that's in the announcement or linked documentation
17:25:40 <jberkus> ok, so let's follow up on this in email and tickets
17:25:43 * roshi is on sabbatical
17:25:52 <maxamillion> roshi: right, totally fair
17:25:55 <roshi> :p
17:26:00 <maxamillion> roshi: it's been a busy six months
17:26:07 <roshi> so it seems :)
17:26:27 <jberkus> please read your email; I have a proposal there for an alteration to the guidelines
17:26:45 <jberkus> #topic Kubenetes in Fedora Atomic
17:27:10 <jberkus> so, are we putting the kube packages back into FAH 25?
17:27:17 <jbrooks> I think we should
17:27:38 <jberkus> I agree.  What are the blockers on that?
17:27:47 <jbrooks> I think we should put kubernetes, etcd and flannel back in
17:28:04 <jbrooks> There are ways to run all of them in containers, but we don't have official fedora containers
17:28:13 <trishnag> jbrooks: +1
17:28:30 <jberkus> walters: are there technical blockers to putting them back into the tree?
17:28:34 <maxamillion> jberkus: +1
17:28:38 <maxamillion> errr
17:28:40 <maxamillion> jbrooks: +1
17:28:42 <maxamillion> brb
17:29:13 <jbrooks> There shouldn't be
17:29:33 <walters> jberkus, but then when do we take them out again?
17:29:44 <jbrooks> We could do it for f26
17:29:46 <jberkus> walters: 26, *if* we meet the requirements
17:30:03 <jberkus> that is, having another viable method of install, including documenation which covers migration
17:30:09 <jbrooks> We should be able to have official containers for the missing components by then
17:30:09 <walters> okay
17:30:22 <jberkus> ok
17:30:29 <roshi> has someone written anything regarding the testing of any of these things? (Sorry to be jumping all around)
17:30:38 <jbrooks> Which things?
17:30:41 <jberkus> #action add kubernetes packages back into the base OStree for FAH 25
17:30:59 <roshi> (things meaning the registry, layerd builds, standards for containers in the registry, etc)
17:31:09 <jberkus> #action jberkus to create tickets for prerequisites for removing kube packages from  base ostree
17:31:38 <jberkus> roshi: not sure, take it up on #fedora-cloud after the meeting?
17:32:09 <roshi> sure thing
17:32:49 * maxamillion is back
17:32:50 <jberkus> #topic ISO Images
17:33:05 <jberkus> https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/185
17:33:48 <walters> one thing i'm uncertain about long term is how much fedora-based containers make sense for some of these infra components vs using centos
17:34:08 <walters> i understand our mindset coming from the distro world is "all software from one source"
17:34:33 <jberkus> walters, dustymabe: does it look like we'll be able to get the anaconda fix merged this week?
17:34:34 <walters> anyways we don't need to discuss it now
17:34:43 <dustymabe> jberkus: it is merged upstream
17:34:43 <jberkus> walters: yeah, that's a big topic
17:34:47 <dustymabe> and also into F25
17:34:54 <walters> jberkus, i'm a proven packager so I could do the build myself but...
17:34:55 <dustymabe> waiting on a new rpm build
17:34:58 <jbrooks> or, like, busybox-based containers
17:35:00 <jberkus> dustymabe: ah, so it's just waiting on the new 2-week release?
17:35:06 <walters> (aside: this whole "individual package fiefdoms" thing is also totally broken)
17:35:30 <dustymabe> jberkus: basically we have to get the rpm into fedora
17:35:32 <walters> jberkus, before that someone needs to manually initiate a koji build and manually click the stuff in bodhi
17:35:40 <dustymabe> and then the media should get built with the new anaconda
17:35:50 <jberkus> who's "someone"?
17:35:59 <walters> one of the anaconda maintainers for the first part
17:36:05 <dustymabe> walters: I've asked them to do that
17:36:13 <jberkus> ok
17:36:14 <dustymabe> I believe they are going to
17:36:15 <walters> anyways i've already typed more here in irc than would be required to do the work
17:36:24 <jberkus> dustymabe: can you follow up in a couple days if there's no update?
17:36:39 <dustymabe> jberkus: yeah, this is something I'd like in the next two week
17:36:55 <dustymabe> which is next week FYI
17:36:59 <dustymabe> if we can make it
17:37:03 <jberkus> #action dustymabe to follow-up on merge of UEFI patch into anaconda
17:37:33 <jberkus> speaking of which, walters is it realistic to get kube added back in for the same release?
17:38:11 <dustymabe> jberkus: to be clear, we are talking about adding it back in *only* for Fedora 25
17:38:30 <dustymabe> so we would not be adding it in to F26, we would leave that like it currently is
17:38:32 <dustymabe> right?
17:38:37 <jberkus> dustymabe:  correct
17:38:58 <walters> jberkus, keep in mind that everything we're talking about in fedora for Atomic Host releases actually doesn't make sense https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6545
17:39:10 <walters> specifically in this instance if I change the treefile json, it will ship the next day
17:39:56 <dustymabe> walters: indeed
17:40:02 <dustymabe> that is something we want to get fixed
17:40:03 <walters> anyways, that's probably OK
17:40:14 <jberkus> walters: well, that's a plus when it comes to pushing changes fast
17:40:17 <jberkus> ;-)
17:40:27 <walters> once a day isn't fast =)
17:40:43 <jberkus> walters: but yeah, want to have the discussion around a different release process for first meeting of next year?
17:40:55 <jberkus> walters: realistically, nothing is going to get done next week
17:41:08 <dustymabe> jberkus: yeah, that discussion is on me
17:41:40 <dustymabe> i've got some work to do with releng folks, and then I'm sending out a request for review of the proposed changes
17:41:53 <jberkus> #action dustymabe, walters to discuss new release process at beginning of calendar year 2017
17:42:23 <jberkus> #topic other issues
17:42:39 <jberkus> New PRD: I'm not finished yet, watch your email
17:43:29 <jberkus> other critical issues
17:43:42 <jberkus> Website: are the cloud images available again?
17:44:03 <dustymabe> jberkus: not sure what that last item is?
17:44:10 <dustymabe> can you rephrase your question
17:45:06 <jberkus> ah
17:45:18 <jberkus> so, in the changed to getfedora.org, the cloud base images vanished
17:45:26 <jbrooks> I don't see them
17:45:27 <jberkus> they're not on Atomic and they're not on Server
17:45:27 <jbrooks> https://getfedora.org/en/atomic/download/
17:45:30 <maxamillion> whoops ... /part'd the wrong chan
17:45:43 <jberkus> and the planned changes for alt.fedoraproject.org for 25 didn't happen
17:45:47 <jberkus> so they're not there either
17:45:58 <trishnag> well cloud images are not even here now https://alt.fedoraproject.org/
17:46:04 <dustymabe> here is the ticket: https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/57
17:46:13 <dustymabe> been waiting on the websites team
17:46:28 <dustymabe> but it's not their fault that we were bad at communicating the change to them
17:46:30 <jberkus> hmmm
17:46:33 <dustymabe> so we have to patiently wait
17:46:46 <dustymabe> however, I actually foud a new contributor here in the NYC office that is working on it
17:46:56 <jberkus> dustymabe: oh, that's good
17:47:12 <dustymabe> so hoping she can get things working, i'm going to sit down with her later today
17:47:22 <jberkus> ok
17:47:42 <jberkus> dustymabe: FYI, the websites team showed me a plan for alt.fedoraproject.org which was going to have all of the downloads in a searchable grid
17:47:58 <dustymabe> jberkus: that's nice
17:48:04 <jberkus> which was the reason I didn't see removing the cloud base images as critical
17:48:23 <jberkus> dustymabe: might be nice to find out what happened to that
17:48:49 <dustymabe> jberkus: yeah, no idea
17:49:31 <jberkus> added to issue
17:50:57 <jberkus> anything to discuss with fedora-dockerfiles other than needing to start work on porting all of those to FDLIBS?
17:51:05 <jberkus> https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/180
17:51:20 * jberkus can port containers, since he can't review them
17:51:43 <dustymabe> jberkus: you can work on getting *packager* status
17:51:52 <dustymabe> it's not too hard, bowlofeggs helped me out quite a bit
17:53:21 <jberkus> ok,
17:53:25 <jberkus> #topic open floor
17:53:29 <jberkus> anything else?
17:54:18 <dustymabe> jberkus: overlayfs
17:54:20 * roshi has nothing :)
17:54:25 <jberkus> dustymabe: go ahead
17:54:26 <dustymabe> should we propose that all of fedora move to overlayfs?
17:54:38 <maxamillion> dustymabe: for what specifically?
17:54:38 <jberkus> roshi has 6+ months of catch-up
17:54:40 * walters votes yes
17:54:53 <jberkus> dustymabe: what's the drawback?
17:54:53 <roshi> yeah, I have a lot of reading to do...
17:55:03 <dustymabe> walters: yeah I'd like that too, the "don't store data in containers" thing does scare me a bit
17:55:06 <jberkus> roshi: feel free to bug me or any of us
17:55:14 <jberkus> roshi: we really need you doing QA
17:55:30 <jberkus> dustymabe: explain?
17:55:34 <roshi> oh I will :) I'll probably surpass the annoying threshold :p
17:56:09 <dustymabe> jberkus: see ML: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SF4GGOU2NHLQRDEBFII3YRT3WYU24RR3/
17:56:20 <dustymabe> the conversation in that mail should give some perspective
17:56:37 <dustymabe> roshi: consider me annoyed already :)
17:56:53 <roshi> lol
17:57:19 <dustymabe> so especially if we get that patch upstream in (farther down the ML thread), then I say we merge it and see what other issues we find
17:57:21 <jberkus> dustymabe: so stuff errors out if you try to write to files inside the container?
17:58:13 <jberkus> dustymabe: I think this is an excellent thing to run by our userbase
17:58:29 <jberkus> publicize the tradeoff, get feedback, get people to test real workloads
17:58:29 <dustymabe> jberkus: it can based on that one issue
17:58:43 <dustymabe> jberkus: yeah I think that's what I'll mention in the blog post
17:58:57 * dustymabe is going to do a blog post on overlayfs on F25, showing people how to set it up
17:59:01 <jberkus> dustymabe: that also potentially adds a requirement to FDLIBS
17:59:16 <dustymabe> jberkus: why?
17:59:23 <jberkus> that containers need to call out all writeable dirs as VOLUMES in the container def
17:59:31 <jberkus> *all* of them
18:00:04 <dustymabe> is that true though? or just that they should call out the ones they care about?
18:00:12 <dustymabe> I don't know
18:00:14 <dustymabe> walters: ^^
18:00:33 <jberkus> dustymabe: "doesn't fully support POSIX sematics" suggests to me that there could be fatal errors
18:00:49 <jberkus> at runtime
18:01:06 <jberkus> like, I don't care about Postgres' tmpstats dir
18:01:10 <jberkus> but I do care if it errors out
18:01:22 <jberkus> ok
18:01:27 <dustymabe> jberkus: yeah, I think we need to understand the problem space better
18:01:38 <jberkus> #action dustymabe walters jberkus to explore overlayfs writeability issue
18:01:47 <jberkus> #action dustymabe to blog using overlayfs in Atomic
18:01:58 <jberkus> ok, we're out of time
18:02:08 <jberkus> take further discussion on #fedora-cloud and the mailing lists
18:02:13 <jberkus> #endmeeting