16:30:59 <walters> #startmeeting fedora_atomic_wg
16:30:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 15 16:30:59 2017 UTC.  The chair is walters. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:30:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:30:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_atomic_wg'
16:31:26 <walters> #topic Roll Call
16:31:33 <walters> .hello walters
16:31:34 <zodbot> walters: walters 'Colin Walters' <walters@redhat.com>
16:31:36 <ttomecek> .hello2
16:31:37 <strigazi> .hello strigazi
16:31:37 <zodbot> ttomecek: ttomecek 'Tomas Tomecek' <ttomecek@redhat.com>
16:31:39 <dustymabe> .hello2
16:31:40 <zodbot> strigazi: strigazi 'Spyros Trigazis' <strigazi@gmail.com>
16:31:43 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dustymabe@redhat.com>
16:31:51 <ksinny> .hello2
16:31:53 <zodbot> ksinny: Sorry, but you don't exist
16:31:55 <kurushiyama> .hello kurushiyama
16:31:56 <zodbot> kurushiyama: Sorry, but you don't exist
16:31:57 <miabbott> .hello miabbott
16:31:58 <ksinny> oops
16:31:59 <zodbot> miabbott: miabbott 'Micah Abbott' <miabbott@redhat.com>
16:32:00 <rubao> .hello rubao
16:32:02 <zodbot> rubao: rubao 'rubao' <rubao.net@hotmail.com>
16:32:03 <ksinny> .hello sinnykumari
16:32:04 * miabbott is only around for the first 1/2 of the meeting
16:32:05 <zodbot> ksinny: sinnykumari 'Sinny Kumari' <ksinny@gmail.com>
16:32:08 * coremodule is present!
16:32:12 <coremodule> .hello coremodule
16:32:13 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:32:19 <dustymabe> ksinny: yeah your fas name has to match your nick if you want .hello2 to work
16:32:47 <ksinny> dustymabe: thought so
16:32:51 <giuseppe> .hello gscrivano
16:32:52 <zodbot> giuseppe: gscrivano 'Giuseppe Scrivano' <gscrivan@redhat.com>
16:33:08 <jbrooks> .fas jasonbrooks
16:33:09 <zodbot> jbrooks: jasonbrooks 'Jason Brooks' <JBROOKS@REDHAT.COM>
16:33:10 <coremodule> 016047
16:33:27 <walters> #chair giuseppe dustymabe ksinny rubao coremodule strigazi ttomecek jbrooks
16:33:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: coremodule dustymabe giuseppe jbrooks ksinny rubao strigazi ttomecek walters
16:33:30 <jlebon> .hello jlebon
16:33:31 <zodbot> jlebon: jlebon 'None' <jlebon@redhat.com>
16:33:32 <dustymabe> welcome coremodule
16:33:35 <walters> #topic Action items from last meeting
16:33:52 <walters> (i am totally just copy-pasting https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic_WG#Meetings - whoever wrote that thank you!)
16:34:18 <puiterwijk> hi
16:34:24 <walters> #topic https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/354
16:35:00 <dustymabe> walters: i usually paste them in here
16:35:05 <dustymabe> do you want me to do that this time?
16:35:11 <walters> sure
16:35:24 <davdunc> .hello davdunc
16:35:25 <dustymabe> i get them from meetbot here
16:35:26 <zodbot> davdunc: davdunc 'David Duncan' <davdunc@amazon.com>
16:35:28 <dustymabe> https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-11-08/fedora_atomic_wg.2017-11-08-16.30.txt
16:35:34 <dustymabe> * jberkus to post target publication, calendar of posts later today to
16:35:36 <dustymabe> mailing list
16:35:38 <dustymabe> * jberkus to get out survey about container runtimes
16:35:40 <dustymabe> * jbrooks jberkus to test asciibinder rpm
16:35:42 <dustymabe> * maxamillion to announce to the world that we are planning to remove
16:35:42 <walters> ah ok, got it
16:35:44 <dustymabe> fedora docker layered images from docker hub and start fresh
16:35:46 <dustymabe> * jberkus to propose new quorum rules based on scheduled online votes
16:35:49 <walters> #topic Action items from last meeting
16:36:01 <walters> #topic Action items from last meeting
16:36:06 <walters> #link https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-11-08/fedora_atomic_wg.2017-11-08-16.30.txt
16:36:20 * dustymabe notices jberkus is MIA
16:36:32 <dustymabe> and so is adam
16:36:35 <jbrooks> I tested the asciibinder rpm in a container, it errored out, I replied to the maintainer, don't think I've heard back
16:36:48 <walters> jbrooks, is there a bz for that?
16:36:50 <maxamillion> .hello2
16:36:51 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
16:36:54 <dustymabe> maxamillion: hiya
16:37:02 <dustymabe> we are in previous action items
16:37:09 <dustymabe> * maxamillion to announce to the world that we are planning to remove
16:37:12 <jbrooks> walters, It was a comment on his copr test, not sure where to bz
16:37:16 <walters> ah got it
16:37:51 <maxamillion> dustymabe: still on my TODO, I'm trying to get the rebuild stuff in line so I can have an actionable sync operation, I don't want to say we're removing and switching until we're actually ready to do it
16:38:08 <maxamillion> if others would rather the announcement go out, then I can do it sooner rather than later
16:38:20 <jbrooks> Ah, he did respond, and it's ready to test again
16:38:36 <kushal> Oh, missed the new meeting time :(
16:38:39 <jbrooks> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Y5BKMAC3HB3BNPQAT5M4GUE5QFQTYZYH/
16:38:47 <jbrooks> So,
16:38:57 <dustymabe> maxamillion: so re-action
16:38:57 <jbrooks> #action jbrooks to retest asciibinder rpm
16:39:05 <dustymabe> kushal: :)
16:39:11 <dustymabe> just started
16:39:16 <kushal> dustymabe, thanks
16:39:21 <kushal> .hellomynameis kushal
16:39:22 <zodbot> kushal: kushal 'Kushal Das' <mail@kushaldas.in>
16:39:26 <kurushiyama> maxamillion My two cents: It might be of advantage for people which will need/want to adapt/migrate to get early notice.
16:39:48 <dustymabe> ok walters mind re-actioning items from jberkus?
16:40:00 <walters> #action jberkus to post target publication, calendar of posts later today to mailing list
16:40:04 <walters> #action jberkus to get out survey about container runtimes
16:40:10 <walters> #action jberkus to propose new quorum rules based on scheduled online votes
16:40:31 <maxamillion> kurushiyama: I'm open to whatever the consensus is, but we've yet to reach one
16:40:56 <dustymabe> maxamillion: on the topic of removing the fedora dockerfiles images on docker hub?
16:41:04 <dustymabe> i thought we reached concensus on that one pretty easily
16:42:13 <walters> yeah i didn't think anyone objected
16:42:16 <maxamillion> dustymabe: no, about the announcement ... do we wait until we're ready to pull the trigger or should I just announce it and we'll get around to actually doing it when it's all ready
16:42:28 <maxamillion> ?*
16:42:29 <dustymabe> im for announcing now
16:42:41 <maxamillion> I'm against announcing now
16:42:42 <dustymabe> then when we do it just respond to the announement email
16:43:07 <davdunc> so a pre-announce.
16:43:08 <dustymabe> ok. either way works
16:43:19 <maxamillion> but I'll do it if people would prefer it
16:43:27 <dustymabe> i didn't anticipate there being a long time between when we announced and when we did it
16:43:32 <dustymabe> hence the Action Item
16:43:37 <jberkus> .hello jberkus
16:43:38 <zodbot> jberkus: jberkus 'Josh Berkus' <josh@agliodbs.com>
16:43:43 <dustymabe> those are typically for 'things to do this week'
16:43:44 <jberkus> sorry I'm late, pest control issue
16:44:09 <maxamillion> dustymabe: I didn't either, but I can't ever seem to get a solid block of time to work on the automation, the interrupt work leading up to and dealing with the f27 release has been rough ... also OSBS in stage had to be rebuilt ... it's been one dumpster fire after another
16:44:09 <jbrooks> Since maxamillion is the one doing it, I'm good w/ his announce timetable
16:44:21 <maxamillion> jbrooks: meh, it's just an email :)
16:44:24 <dustymabe> maxamillion: indeed.
16:44:31 <dustymabe> lets drop the action item and track it in a ticket then
16:44:37 <dustymabe> can you create a new ticket for that?
16:44:39 <maxamillion> dustymabe: I can
16:44:42 <dustymabe> cool
16:45:39 <kurushiyama> .hello mwmahlberg
16:45:40 <zodbot> kurushiyama: mwmahlberg 'Markus Wolfgang Mahlberg' <markus.mahlberg@icloud.com>
16:46:00 <walters> let's move to this week's items then?
16:46:04 <dustymabe> +1
16:46:11 <walters> #topic https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/354
16:46:32 <jberkus> kurushiyama: I did not get to the quorum rules; sorry, with the survey and the F27 release I dropped that
16:46:57 <kurushiyama> jberkus Cool. Just when you are ready.
16:47:52 <walters> feels like this one is good to continue conversation in ticket?
16:48:04 <dustymabe> walters: mostly
16:48:14 <dustymabe> was hoping someone could summarize as the ticket is getting quite long
16:48:22 <walters> yeah i had to reread it
16:48:33 <walters> will give 1 more min for people to comment, i'm just going to pile on there though
16:49:05 <dustymabe> i fall into the "i'm ok with whatever as long as it's consistent and not too burdensome on the maintainer" camp
16:49:33 <jbrooks> same
16:49:45 <jberkus> yah, we're just trying to figure out what that is
16:50:16 <jberkus> the only issue still being discuss is whether we should allow automated conversion of man pages which doesn't fit the format
16:50:41 <dustymabe> jberkus: so we're pretty close to resolution?
16:50:53 <walters> ok only 10 mins left, let's move on if people are OK with that?
16:51:02 <kurushiyama> Wouldnt it make more sense to have one central "source of truth" and generate the various formats needed from that?
16:51:30 <jberkus> kurushiyama: kinda, except that there's not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between packages and containers
16:51:32 <dustymabe> walters: we usually run for an hour, but i'm not opposed to having a shorter meeting today
16:51:39 <walters> oh right, sorry
16:53:05 <dustymabe> anyone with anything else to say?
16:53:24 <walters> i dropped a comment in the ticket
16:53:46 <davdunc> still waiting for details from the AWS Marketplace, but I am pushing.
16:53:48 <jberkus> dustymabe: can I confirm our publication schedule for F27 blogs?
16:53:58 <jberkus> and is ksinny here?
16:54:00 <dustymabe> jberkus: in open floor?
16:54:06 <jberkus> sure
16:54:07 <dustymabe> we are still in tickets phase
16:54:48 <walters> #topic https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/360
16:55:12 <dustymabe> i think this one had to do with jberkus' action items and the survey
16:55:33 <jberkus> btw, it's helpful for the meeting logs if you say what the ticket is as well as the number
16:55:42 <jberkus> container runtimes in atomic host ^^^
16:55:47 <walters> "Decide strategy for including container runtimes in Atomic Host"
16:56:09 <dustymabe> i usually #topic the title and #link the url
16:56:17 <walters> ah
16:56:56 <walters> what confuses me on this a bit is - if we go this direction how much different are we from a "minimal install"?
16:56:58 <ksinny> jberkus: yes
16:57:07 <strigazi> Is a docker-ce system container considered at all? from the docker repos?
16:57:31 <jberkus> I have 43 responses to the survey
16:57:34 <walters> strigazi, i am not sure docker upstream has looked at the syscontainer approach
16:57:43 <jberkus> a few of them are members of the Fedora Atomic team, so I need to filter those out
16:57:54 <kurushiyama> I do not see why the community could not provide alternative runtimes since they are not mutually exclusive. Stripping away a proven setup would make Atomic an immutable Alpine... ;)
16:57:57 * kurushiyama takes cover
16:58:00 <dustymabe> jberkus: i'll note I have abstained from responding
16:58:06 <jberkus> yah
16:58:07 <walters> i guess an important detail here is "do we still include container-selinux"?
16:58:09 <dustymabe> but i will respond if you'd like that input
16:58:16 <jberkus> no
16:58:26 <jberkus> we're looking for users here, particularly users we don't otherwise hear from
16:58:33 <walters> and actually that requirement is something where syscontainers would need a host dependency
16:58:50 <jberkus> if it's possible for any of you to broadcast that survey link so we can get more results, that would be great
16:59:03 <jberkus> https://goo.gl/forms/OBVcbz00dwZpcLb52
16:59:09 * kurushiyama fires up twitter
16:59:14 <walters> otherwise `atomic install docker` is going to be problematic on a yum-based system without container-selinux
16:59:28 <jberkus> At this point, only two of the 43 has serious objections to containerizing docker
16:59:53 <jberkus> but for one of them those objections are strong enough that downstream (i.e. RHAH) might choose NOT to containerize docker
17:00:05 <jbrooks> I think we'd keep container-selinux
17:00:26 <jbrooks> We'd be keeping atomic and runc, so it's not like we'd be including zero container components
17:00:26 <jberkus> so one question is, do we want to containerize docker if we know that downstream (RHAH, CAH) won't?
17:00:40 <giuseppe> walters, we could add an .rpm dependency on the system container, if installed with --system-package=yes (which is the default) then it will be honored
17:00:52 <walters> we also have systemd-container
17:00:53 <giuseppe> when the .rpm to track files on the host is installed
17:01:08 <jberkus> walters: isn't systemd-container just a wrapper around runc?
17:01:20 <walters> jberkus, systemd-container is nspawn from systemd
17:01:31 <jberkus> oh, right
17:01:35 <jberkus> do we use that for anything?
17:01:52 <walters> which ironically is only pulled in indirectly from oci-register-machine
17:02:02 * dustymabe still doesn't like the idea of removing docker from base system, but I'm not good at convincing others of my opinions these days
17:02:14 <jberkus> interestingly, 7 of our users claim to be running Docker 17 CE on Atomic Host
17:02:19 <jberkus> I wonder how they installed it?
17:02:22 <walters> (we don't list it explicitly)
17:02:37 <strigazi> I built a system container
17:03:11 <strigazi> That is how we used docker 17.x in FAH
17:03:40 <walters> (also we have bubblewrap which is pulled in indirectly too by rpm-ostree)
17:04:15 <jberkus> here's one chart which has a consistent trend: https://pasteboard.co/GTMOgGR.png
17:04:19 <jbrooks> strigazi, Oh, cool, did you just base it off the existing docker one?
17:04:45 <strigazi> jbrooks yes, based on docker-centos syscontainer
17:04:53 <jberkus> leaving out the miscellaneus responses, we're just about evenly split between people who want the latest Docker and people who want a "stable" older version
17:05:05 <jberkus> (stable being Kube/Openshift support, probably)
17:05:12 <kurushiyama> My point of view is that the Red Hat family of OSes should be as consitent as possible to minimize migration efforts.
17:05:46 <jberkus> dustymabe: we wouldn't be doing a survey if it wasn't a split
17:06:35 <maxamillion> kurushiyama: I don't like that because it infers that Fedora bends to Red Hat's will, but it doesn't and shouldn't, Fedora is beholden to the community
17:06:39 <strigazi> jberkus: there is a difference on what stable means based on swarm vs kube/openshift
17:07:04 <walters> kurushiyama, but Fedora is always going to be leading to some degree right?
17:07:21 <jberkus> strigazi: is there anything "stable" with swarm?
17:07:26 <kurushiyama> maxamillion I do not see it as bending, but rather agreement on a certain procedure to optimize the "user experience".
17:07:42 <davdunc> consistency with the latest kube release seems reasonable to me.
17:07:46 <jberkus> walters: I think he was responding to my question about whether we want to containerize docker if we know that RHAH won't
17:08:12 <walters> ah, right
17:08:19 <strigazi> jberkus: let's try to let user adoption define what is stable, user ask for it in general
17:08:22 <kurushiyama> walters Ofc. I can only say that from a users point of view, removing the included Container runtime will make a lot of people's life _a lot_ harder.
17:08:39 <kurushiyama> walters Docker, that is ofc.
17:08:41 <walters> that's definitely true
17:08:47 <jberkus> strigazi: I'm not sure what course of action your statement would mean
17:09:06 <walters> one detail here is it will force more people to do container image mirroring
17:09:21 <kurushiyama> Disclosing: If it was removed downstream, it would make the use of Docker close to impossible for us.
17:09:29 <dustymabe> walters: or just package layer an rpm they build
17:09:43 <maxamillion> kurushiyama: so if Fedora can't evolve, we're basically stuck delivering the RHEL experience but with newer versions of software forever ... so long as those newer versions of software don't actually change anything, yes?
17:10:16 <walters> dustymabe, yes, but also mirroring for the rpms
17:10:28 <dustymabe> walters: yes
17:10:39 <kurushiyama> maxamillion No, that is not what I am trying to say.
17:10:48 <dustymabe> i think we need to let more results come from the survey
17:10:52 <walters> (which for fedora is a lot more problematic due to all of the inherent races in how we deliver RPMs)
17:11:02 <jbrooks> I don't know, I'm not so wedded to removing docker, I guess
17:11:03 <jberkus> maxamillion: isn't that the fundamental dilemma for Fedora?  should we do things that we know that RHEL will never adopt?
17:11:16 <jbrooks> My thing has been: what does this say about cri-o?
17:11:21 <jberkus> jbrooks: yeah
17:11:29 <jberkus> so here's the problems with NOT removing docker
17:11:38 <jberkus> 1. base image/tree size
17:11:51 <jberkus> 2. makes installing your own Docker (to get a different version) harder
17:11:53 <kurushiyama> maxamillion The point I am trying to make is that it should be consistent. By means of finding a procedure all parts can agree with.
17:11:57 <maxamillion> jberkus: if there's enough community interest, why not?
17:12:16 <jberkus> 3. de-facto promotes a specific version of Docker ahead of other runtimes
17:12:54 <dustymabe> jberkus: i think you need to rephrase your title
17:12:55 <strigazi> jberkus: what I meant is, we can't tell users what stable is. I think having the option to use the stable for docker in a some way is positive. I don't want to flag swarm unstable and make it completely inaccessible
17:12:59 <maxamillion> kurushiyama: pending scope, I'm in agreement
17:13:03 <dustymabe> we have different options
17:13:04 <jberkus> maxamillion: I'm suggesting that sometimes the answer is going to be yes, and sometimes it's going to be no
17:13:17 <dustymabe> 1. NOT removing docker and DON't include CRI-O
17:13:28 <dustymabe> 2. NOT removing docker and INCLUDING CRI-O
17:13:31 <walters> i think i'd say *if* we remove we should try to make it sort of gradual somehow...maybe for f28 we simply don't start the service by default?
17:13:33 <kurushiyama> jberkus Regarding the promotional part... X-Windows? ;)
17:13:34 <dustymabe> 3. NOT including either
17:13:45 <walters> (starting docker.service by default is a huge pain point actually and i regret it)
17:13:53 <walters> i can do that pr right now
17:14:26 <jberkus> dustymabe: IIRC, including CRI-O will bulk up the base image by 20%, no?
17:14:35 <strigazi> walters: and maybe don't start container-storage-setup too?
17:14:44 <walters> strigazi, that'd be implicit in this
17:14:44 <dustymabe> walters: i'm not opposed to that (because docker-storage-setup can be tricky), but let's open a ticket for it and discuss there
17:14:49 <walters> dustymabe, ok will do
17:14:55 <dustymabe> jberkus: maybe. it's still an option
17:15:09 <dustymabe> and we just removed kube, so we freed up some space
17:15:45 <jberkus> dustymabe: yet somehow the ISO download isn't smaller.  What's up with that?
17:16:12 <dustymabe> jberkus: honestly I haven't looked at the ISO download sizes lately, so I don't know
17:16:13 <walters> jberkus, the ISO also includes anaconda which is 50% of a desktop, with fonts etc.  I'd guess that grew
17:16:22 <jberkus> walters: ah
17:16:36 <dustymabe> maybe better comparison would be qcow sizes??
17:16:40 <kurushiyama> How about different spins?
17:16:54 <dustymabe> kurushiyama: honestly i've thought about that before
17:17:00 <strigazi> dustymabe the raw ones
17:17:16 <dustymabe> i don't think we want to get too fractured, but I like the idea of COPRs for Atomic Host :)
17:17:23 <walters> also sadly we duplicate the initramfs a few times...i need to fix that
17:17:26 <kurushiyama> dustymabe I think this would be exactly the agreement we need.a
17:17:30 <maxamillion> jberkus: I just don't understand why that's ultimately a concern of Fedora's. If Red Hatters are interested in joining the community and expressing their interests as members of the community, that's wonderful. However, this concept that Fedora as an organization should align with Red Hat as an entity seems weird
17:17:35 * walters filed https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/384
17:18:19 <jbrooks> It looks like the compressed qcow is about 20MB smaller
17:18:27 <jbrooks> than in 26
17:18:30 <dustymabe> maxamillion: i'm with you on the fact that we are Fedora and we can do whatever we want to. but as someone who helps manage more than just fedora it's a lot easier when I don't have to keep up with package differences between FAH RHELAH and CentOSAH
17:18:44 <jbrooks> compressed raw
17:18:50 <jberkus> maxamillion: so that's a "no, we don't care what RHAH/CentOS will do with it" for you.
17:19:06 <dustymabe> jberkus: any chance you could compare the uncompressed sizes? xz compression is magical
17:19:10 <dustymabe> and might be skewing the numbers
17:19:38 <maxamillion> jberkus: no, nevermind
17:19:43 <maxamillion> I'm clearly not making my point well enough
17:19:52 <maxamillion> it doesn't matter and is off topic
17:19:52 <dustymabe> jberkus: i think officially that is our answer. we should never make a decision that hurts the community that benefits the downstreams
17:20:04 <davdunc> maxamillion: I think it's clear.
17:20:09 <maxamillion> dustymabe: yes, that
17:20:09 <jbrooks> Looks like 668 vs 750 for the qcows
17:20:20 <dustymabe> but if it helps a good part of the community members that are doing the work then i'd say it makes sense to have alignment
17:20:28 <jberkus> dustymabe, kurushiyama: yeah, the perfect solution to this for everyone *except* Fedora RelEng would be to have separate trees, one with a built-in stable docker, and one without
17:20:35 <maxamillion> dustymabe: it's about Fedora's community vs the downstreams, community should always win out but downstreams are welcome to that community
17:20:55 <jberkus> but I can imagine what suggesting that we double our number of trees/ISOs would provoke as a reaction
17:20:59 <jbrooks> Do we know how much smaller the image would be w/o docker?
17:21:21 <jbrooks> I don't imagine it would be that dramatic
17:21:22 <kurushiyama> jberkus Hm, would they? Or decide just to follow the Docker tree maybe?
17:21:52 <jberkus> kurushiyama: I don't follow
17:22:13 <dustymabe> jberkus: my thoughts are that we would have the base tree. then a subtree (like a layer) that included docker, and another subtree that was for crio
17:22:22 <dustymabe> we could have another subtree that was for libvirt/kvm
17:22:23 <dustymabe> etc..
17:22:31 <dustymabe> but now we are heading towards the weeds
17:22:41 <jberkus> dustymabe: you would know better than me how possible that is
17:22:46 <dustymabe> we should probably head back to meeting land and go to the next ticket
17:22:46 <kurushiyama> jberkus Assume there was a FAH-Docker and a FAH-CRIO spin. RelEng would not necessarily have to deal with CRIO, right?
17:23:14 <walters> yeah i don't think we can *decide* anything now, but we're going to have to keep discussing this for a while, and this was a good discussion i think
17:23:28 <kurushiyama> +1
17:23:32 <jberkus> yah, and I have stuff for Open Floor
17:23:41 <walters> #topic 363 Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules
17:23:46 <walters> #link https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363
17:24:01 <jberkus> walters: got postponed amidst f27 release
17:24:15 <dustymabe> while we are on this topic can we look at https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/377 and choose to just dup that in favor of this ticket or not
17:24:37 <dustymabe> looks like it's similar to me
17:24:52 <dustymabe> basically 'majority rules a vote'
17:24:57 <walters> how do we decide on that ticket?  vote or not? ;)
17:25:04 <dustymabe> :)
17:25:20 <jbrooks> heh
17:25:35 <jbrooks> cage fighting
17:25:47 <jberkus> can we get to F27 publications?
17:25:54 <jberkus> I really need to address thesebefore the meeting ends
17:26:32 <jberkus> walters: ?
17:26:48 <dustymabe> there is one ticket opened by giussepe
17:26:53 <dustymabe> that would be good to discuss
17:26:53 <walters> sorry yes, we can context switch to that now?
17:27:11 <walters> anyone object to people editing the wiki to add themselves to the WG like ashcrow ?
17:27:30 <jberkus> or we could maybe not publish anything for the f27 release.  that's OK I guess, I'm on PTO anyway\
17:27:39 <walters> #topic f27 publications
17:27:58 <jberkus> ok, this is the tentative schedules
17:27:59 <jberkus> https://gist.github.com/jberkus/1eb55b7d85e2d584f7c7c6138776c2d1
17:28:18 <jberkus> except that there's issues with 3 of those so I want to check on them
17:28:27 <jberkus> jbrooks: where are we on Kube containers?
17:28:38 <jbrooks> jberkus, They're coming
17:28:46 <jbrooks> I think we'll be good to pub today
17:28:55 <jbrooks> maxamillion is hooking us up
17:29:00 <dustymabe> schedule looks good to me
17:29:06 <ksinny> +1
17:29:10 <dustymabe> miabbott: did point out an issue in cockpit he might want to get addressed
17:29:15 <dustymabe> before he publishes
17:29:23 <jbrooks> maxamillion++
17:29:24 <zodbot> jbrooks: Karma for maxamillion changed to 4 (for the f27 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:29:24 <jberkus> ksinny: how does your multi-arch blog post sync with the fedora magazine article?
17:29:33 <jberkus> dustymabe: yeah, that was issue #3
17:29:56 <maxamillion> got it handled
17:29:59 <ksinny> jberkus: multi-arch post on Fedora Magazine will be publish tomorrow at 8Am UTC
17:30:15 <maxamillion> whatever anyone needs, just ping me this week ... it's GA release week so things are going to be hectic and I understand
17:30:27 <maxamillion> apologies if I've been snippy ... it's been a rough few days
17:30:28 <walters> should we try to finish the remaining meeting tickets?
17:30:39 <jberkus> ksinny: how does the content for the two compare?
17:30:45 <dustymabe> walters: is giuseppe around?
17:30:52 <ksinny> jberkus: conents are same
17:30:57 <jberkus> ksinny: can you stay for 10min after the meeting?
17:30:57 <dustymabe> giuseppe: how urgent is the ticket you opened?
17:31:03 <ksinny> jberkus: yeah, I will
17:31:14 <giuseppe> dustymabe, it depends also on getting the CRI-O image released
17:31:15 <jberkus> ok, done with publications
17:31:26 <giuseppe> we want to use it with the Openshift installer
17:31:30 <dustymabe> let's just discuss it real quick
17:31:48 <giuseppe> which is still using an image on my personal docker.io
17:31:56 <walters> #topic  Fedora version agnostic location for container images
17:32:00 <walters> #link https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/376
17:32:15 <dustymabe> so the way I read this was we just want images that arent' tied to f25/f26/etc
17:32:35 <dustymabe> but can just use latest/etcd instead of f26/etcd
17:32:40 <giuseppe> yes, it is enough to not have the f25/f26/f27 in the image name
17:32:47 <jbrooks> I think modularity will give us this for free?
17:32:54 <jbrooks> Once that's in action
17:33:02 <dustymabe> i'm +1 for that but I yield to maxamillion
17:33:10 <jberkus> jbrooks: yah, but I don't think we want to wait for that
17:33:12 <walters> jbrooks, that is a very interesting question
17:33:19 <giuseppe> it could even be a /latest/ that points to whatever is the last release, f27 now
17:33:29 <walters> jberkus, yes, but OTOH we should probably check what they're thinking for a naming scheme for containers
17:34:13 <jbrooks> Whether it's changes to flibs or waiting for modularity, I think there'll be a wait
17:34:21 <jberkus> walters: wouldn't hurt, do you think you can get a clear answer from someone?  when I asked Langdon at Flock, he gave me a big shrug
17:34:43 <langdon> jberkus: i never shrug
17:34:44 <walters> i have no idea of the status of containers-from-modules
17:34:55 <dustymabe> jberkus: he does say "meh" a lot
17:34:58 <jbrooks> This is the sort of thing that we can accomplish more simply in docker.io/projectatomic
17:35:03 <jbrooks> For now
17:35:07 <langdon> dustymabe: point
17:35:22 <walters> i mean server-side-containers, i personally do plan to try to convert some of my "pet containers" to use modules but that's client side and has no relation to server-side images
17:36:06 <langdon> currently, we are waiting on base-images showing up in r.fp.o.. then we will be producing images based on modules.. mostly with help from eliska
17:36:11 <walters> so if we're proposing /latest/...that seems like it should be an easy patch for releng?
17:36:27 <dustymabe> walters: i'd like to not assume and let maxamillion weigh in
17:36:29 <walters> i would actually be very curious *where* such a patch would be made
17:36:31 <maxamillion> containers-from-modules is likely to need some level of design for how it's going to affect FLIBS ... arbitrary branching isn't something I've taken into consideration for FLIBS because it wasn't a thing until a few months ago
17:37:11 <maxamillion> yeah, the idea of /latest/ would be pretty easy to maintain for the sync operation to the registries
17:37:12 <dustymabe> maxamillion: what do you think about registry.fedoraproject.org/latest -> registry.fedoraproject.org/f26 ?
17:37:24 <maxamillion> dustymabe: I think f26 is wrong, but the idea is fine
17:37:29 <maxamillion> :)
17:37:44 <dustymabe> so drill down just a little deeper on this one
17:38:08 <dustymabe> if I build etcd in f27 then /latest/etcd -> /f27/etcd
17:38:20 <dustymabe> and httpd didn't have an f27 version yet
17:38:31 <dustymabe> would /latest/httpd -> /f27/httpd ?
17:38:34 <maxamillion> it would not
17:38:39 <dustymabe> i.e. is it global or not?
17:38:46 <walters> let's do 2-3 more mins on this then i'll call it, and let's do the members/voting one first thing next time, and please add comments to the ticket for that one
17:38:48 <dustymabe> global would probably be easier to implement
17:39:06 <maxamillion> dustymabe: not the way I was thinking of it, global would actually be harder
17:39:06 <dustymabe> ok /me quiet now
17:39:12 <dustymabe> maxamillion: +1
17:39:19 <dustymabe> maxamillion: can you update the ticket ?
17:39:29 <dustymabe> I don't know of anyone who is -1 for this
17:39:41 <maxamillion> sure thing
17:39:43 <jberkus> +1
17:39:51 <walters> i'd also be curious where the code change for such a thing would live
17:39:59 <maxamillion> wait, what ticket is this? it's not in the topic
17:40:04 <walters> it'd be nice if more people could help out
17:40:05 <dustymabe> https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/376
17:40:32 <dustymabe> walters: i agree. this is mostly black box to me
17:40:45 <maxamillion> walters: I'm in the process of implementing it here https://pagure.io/releng-automation ... it's currently in some releng scripts that I don't want anyone to ever look at because they need to die
17:40:47 <walters> i can just barely keep in my head all of the pieces for FAH
17:41:05 <maxamillion> walters: I'm working in a topic branch and hope to have the new version complete by the end of the week
17:41:11 <dustymabe> walters: if you're having trouble think about my tiny brain :)
17:41:13 <walters> #link https://pagure.io/releng-automation
17:41:37 <dustymabe> maxamillion: this ticket https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/376
17:41:57 <maxamillion> dustymabe: got it
17:41:59 <walters> ok, endmeeting?
17:42:03 <maxamillion> +1
17:42:16 <dustymabe> walters: open floor for just a second
17:42:20 <walters> #topic open floor
17:42:33 <dustymabe> anyone with anything short or that can't wait til next time
17:42:53 <davdunc> still waiting on final paperwork AWS MP...
17:42:58 <dustymabe> davdunc: +1
17:43:01 <davdunc> just keeping that going.
17:43:25 <walters> cool
17:43:46 <walters> #endmeeting