<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:00:56
!startmeeting FESCO (2024-04-29)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:01:00
Meeting started at 2024-04-29 19:00:56 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:01:00
The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2024-04-29)'
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:01:05
!meetingname fesco
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:01:17
!topic Init Process
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:01:27
morning (here, but also in my overlapping meeting)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:01:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:01:54
Major Hayden (mhayden) - he / him / his
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:01:58
.hi
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:02:08
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:02:11
David Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:02:21
hi!
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:02:22
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:02:26
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:02:42
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:02:46
Josh Stone (jistone) - he / him / his
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:02:55
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:02:59
Tom Stellard (tstellar)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:03:09
i'm counting 6 now i think (requires two hands)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:03:38
here's Stephen Gallagher's agenda: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/TX5GHS7NKG5WI7ZB4IC53HOWPK7NYLLF/
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:03:59
!topic #3198 Request to update Kubernetes version in Fedora 38
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:04:02
!fesco 3198
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:04:03
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:04:05
**fesco #3198** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3198):**Request to update Kubernetes version in Fedora 38**
● **Opened:** a week ago by buckaroogeek
● **Last Updated:** 6 hours ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:04:07
Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:04:39
and Stephen Gallagher's -1 here is in this comment: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3198#comment-906386
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:05:13
I am semi-here (sitting in waiting room)
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:05:27
I also agree with sgallagh here, -1 on the upgrade in F38
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:05:31
hope your kiddo is okay, Stephen Gallagher 🫂
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:06:05
Thanks. She seems mostly fine. Maybe a sprain or micro-fracture.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:06:26
Yeah, doesn't seem worth it for a low CVE
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:07:01
yeah -1 we should suggest upgrading to the next fedora release
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:07:01
I guess not doing this is reasonable.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:07:15
Realistically, by the time it got through u-t and into users’ hands, they’ll need to upgrade anyway.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:07:16
F38 has 1.26, F39 has 1.27, and F40 has 1.29 --> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kubernetes
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:07:37
i tend to agree with stephen here that upgrading the whole OS is likely warranted
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:07:55
FWIW, almost two weeks have passed since the initial request, and that time we weren't sure when exactly F40 will be out, i.e. how long F38 will have left.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:08:27
but 1.28 is missing in Fedora 🤔 change author notes that hitting each minor version is recommended, but that's something for another time i guess
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:08:49
there is 1.28 in bodhi for f40
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:09:09
mhayden gave a cookie to humaton. They now have 55 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:09:14
F38 goes EOL 14/5/2024, so ~two weeks left.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:09:37
okay, should we vote here on rejecting this change for F38 since so little time is remaining?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:09:46
(time remaining on f38 i mean)
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:10:10
careful about double-negatives on this proposal
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:10:37
Proposal: Leave the kubernetes version at 1.26 in #3198 for F38 since it's close to EOL
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:10:45
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:10:45
+1
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:10:49
+1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:10:52
+1
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:10:58
+1
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:11:00
I'm +1 here too
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:11:04
+1
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:11:42
!agreed Leave the kubernetes version at 1.26 in #3198 for F38 (+7, 0, -0)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:12:02
okay, moving right along!
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:12:10
!topic #3203 Change: Replace Redis with Valkey
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:12:13
!fesco 3203
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:12:16
**fesco #3203** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3203):**Change: Replace Redis with Valkey**
● **Opened:** 22 hours ago by amoloney
● **Last Updated:** 6 hours ago
● **Assignee:** jonathanspw
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:12:31
heard a great talk at TXLF about valkey! 🎉
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:12:46
I'm not sure we should do this right now...
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:13:28
so upstream valkey aims to be a drop-in replacement for the latest version of redis, so one *should* be able to swap them without issue
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:13:55
What is the alternative keeping an old version of redis in Fedora?
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:13:58
have we heard from any actual redis users in Fedora about this proposal?
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:14:08
What is the alternative, keeping an old version of redis in Fedora?
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:14:53
They could still have the `valkey-compat` upgrade package without the full `Obsoletes`, right?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:14:58
survey done here in the discourse: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f41-change-proposal-replace-redis-with-valkey-system-wide/113413/2
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:15:01
well, there's a lot of alternatives coming up, are we sure this is the 'winner' we want to replace redis?
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:15:27
that's my concern as well, picking an early "winner"
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:15:45
I put this on the agenda because I’m also concerned about jumping in too fast.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:16:03
but what will we ship in 41? no redis at all? old version?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:16:15
F41: Change Checkpoint: 100% Code Complete Deadline Tue 2024-08-20
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:16:15
I think we should absolutely package valkey and make it easy to switch to, but picking a specific replacement seems too fast.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:16:28
Yeah.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:16:30
yeah, I agree with that
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:16:32
The current redis is still supported I thought?
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:16:35
get valkey packaged and installable now
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:16:39
isn't the current redis version still receiving updates?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:16:41
and the license change is only on newer
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:16:44
see what else happens leading up to F41 deadline
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:16:45
I’d rather ship the last usable version of redis and provide docs on switching to the alternatives.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:17:40
seems like the sentiment so far is 1) get valkey in place and tested 2) document how to switch 3) come back to a drop-in replacement a bit later ?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:17:44
Stephen Gallagher: good luck!
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:17:55
mhayden: that's what I would like to see
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:17:59
yes, thats what I would prefer.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:18:06
mhayden: yes
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:18:07
okay, i'll wordsmith a proposal
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:18:30
Proposal: Get valkey into Fedora branches, stable, and tested. Document the switch from redis > valkey. Revisit drop-in replacement later.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:19:01
instead of later, can we say revisit before F41 deadline?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:19:37
sure
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:19:47
thats not too far from now tho...
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:20:03
it'
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:20:15
!hi
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:20:15
s just we will revisit the drop-in replacement at that time, not that we will pick one at that time
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:20:19
Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:20:35
ah, jonathanspw is here (change proposer)
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:20:46
I can never get the dang meeting times right, sorry :)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:20:49
the proposologist
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:21:16
jonathanspw: i think the concern is about picking a winner this soon and doing a drop-in valkey/redis replacement this early
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:21:26
Madelyn Olson: and Kyle J. Davis from valkey are here as well
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:21:36
Proposal: We accept the initial part of the Change proposal, i.e. the packaging of Valkey, including the -compat subpackage, and documentation how to switch to valkey, but without obsoleting Redis. We'll revisit the choice of whether/how to obsolete and replace redis before F41 Beta.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:21:42
Kyle J. Davis: great talk at TXLF 👏
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:22:03
+1, i can get behind that, zbyszek
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:22:12
zbyszek +1
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:22:25
+1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:22:30
+1
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:22:30
+1
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:22:31
Seems reasonable enough to me.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:22:41
FESCo folks, if you can review zbyszek's proposal and vote, that would be delightful
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:22:53
i think we're +5
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:23:04
Isn't valkey already packaged?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:23:16
It is!
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:23:32
So everything we are approving already happened?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:23:36
It's safest to vote on proposals where most of the work is done ;)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:23:38
But the "packaging" in question is around the "compat" package and replacement/drop-in
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:23:42
fun
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:23:43
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:23:48
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:23:52
no, there's no obsoletes yet
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:23:55
howdy Conan Kudo 👋
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:24:01
I see the -compat package has been built too.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:24:09
erm, quoted wrong thing
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:24:45
+1 on the proposal fwiw, just seems like a no-op since the packaging seems to be there already.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:24:59
Oh, I thought that the proposal incl. the packaging of Valkey too. My bad.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:25:17
Valkey has already been packaged, this Change is only about replacing Redis
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:25:24
valkey already exists, and the compat package (or at least a POC/draft of it) exists as well, the proposal is specifically about valkey obsoleting redis.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:25:25
The drop-in replacement + obsoletes is up for questions
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:25:54
From my point of view, there are realistically only three options: Replace Redis with Valkey, replace Redis with Redict, or drop Redis with no "replacement"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:26:05
We cannot and should not entertain a "do nothing" option
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:26:46
Conan Kudo: yeah, i worry if the current redis version has a CVE, we're gonna have users stuck with something vulnerable
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:26:52
I think a do nothing _now_ option is reasonable... but yes, we will have to do something with redis
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:26:59
So the state I want to reach is where we the interested parties can do the transition and test compatibility of the proposed `valkey-compat-redis` subpackage and full replacement of redis, but we don't commit to that happenning automatically yet.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:27:04
the current version is still getting security updates...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:27:14
nirik: i actually don't think that's reasonable, because being stuck with it for 13+ months could become a serious issue
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:27:35
and we cannot trust redis labs at their word about security updates
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:27:37
Conan Kudo:
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:27:54
Conan Kudo: please read the scrollback. 100% Changes deadline is in August.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:28:06
Conan Kudo: are you proposing we do the obsoletes + valkey/redis replacement in F41?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:28:16
mhayden: yes, as the Change details
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:28:33
fwiw the change proposal intent is for f41...so the obsoletes coming later, not "now".
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:28:39
The self contained f41 submission deadline is in july...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:29:40
Well, if we approve the full Change today, the normal procedure would be to implement the transition at any time, i.e. even immediately.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:30:09
Only within rawhide though, right?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:30:11
Yes. We could request that the obsoletes part be added as late as just before beta freeze
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:30:14
If valkey is properly packaged and tested, and we know we can't go forward with redis any longer past the current version, why not move forward with this and get it tested for F41?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:31:09
`rawhide` and `f41` are still one branch, so if it happens in rawhide, it'd happen in f41 too.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:31:23
Yeah, that's what I meant.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:31:30
Why is it so important to obsolete redis? Isn't it better to let user's decided when to make the switch?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:31:54
Because Redis' license changed and the contributors to Redis forked the project as a consequence to continue development as a FOSS project
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:32:04
Redis is no longer FOSS
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:32:11
There are actually several forks...
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:32:23
the version *we have* is still FOSS
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:32:31
And this is the third time Redis Labs has broken their word, so now the community trust in them is pretty low
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:32:32
Conan Kudo: I know, but what's wrong with having an old version available in Fedora? We do we need to force people off of it?
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:32:37
Conan Kudo: I know, but what's wrong with having an old version available in Fedora? Why do we need to force people off of it?
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
19:33:19
Redis said they would continue support of 7.2 until EoL, but they haven't fixed a couple of key bugs that Valkey fixed. I'm not very confident they will maintain it much.
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
19:33:27
Redis said they would continue support of 7.2 until EoL, but they haven't fixed a couple of key bugs that Valkey fixed. I'm not very confident they will maintain it much.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:33:38
Redis is internet-facing software, so bugs in the code can result in serious vulnerabilities and potential system compromise
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:33:41
Tom Stellard: I think that we should strive towards upgrades being "automatic", i.e. if it's possible, then the user should just do the upgrade and not need to take any manual actions. If there's just one fork that is clearly dominant and everything or almost everything is compatible and the upgrade can be done automatically, I think we should do it automatically.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:34:23
And this is particularly important for Fedora because large chunks of our infrastructure depend on a Redis server solution that is maintained
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:34:44
is valkey "clearly dominant" already?
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:34:48
I'm with Tom here. Past db upgrades I've been through are rarely, if ever, "drop-in replacements". I like letting the users migrate to valkey and then we separately mark redis obsolete and remove it
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:34:55
IMO...yes
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:35:36
It certainly has a lot of momentum. But it doesn't hurt us to wait a few months before we commit to an upgrade to it.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:35:50
There hasn't _been_ any changes yet to Valkey beyond the name changes so far, so it should be a "drop in replacement".
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
19:35:57
Redict has said they weren't going to do much development, KeyDB hasn't been very actively developed since the main maintainer moved to a management role in Snap.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:36:00
Conan Kudo: Fedora infrastructure can choose to migrate independently, if desired
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:36:01
are any other redis alternatives packaged in fedora now?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:36:17
All three are packaged: Redict, Valkey, and KeyDB
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:36:27
All three by jonathanspw
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:36:28
yes, keydb and redict, though keydb is built on redis 6.x and not compatible
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:36:40
so it's really just valkey v redict in the "drop in replacement" arena.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:36:40
mhayden gave a cookie to jonathanspw. They now have 14 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:37:07
I expect upstream projects will migrate / make decisions around this too... although some will just keep defaulting to redis
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:37:43
At least with my upstream hat on, I will start changing the redis recommendations to valkey
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:37:48
for my projects
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:37:50
From working with both upstreams and watching them develop, valkey gets my vote of confidence over redict for obsoleting redis, not to mention valkey has a few original redis devs whereas redict has none.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:38:06
"should" in "should be a drop-in replacement" is still making assumptions here. but putting that aside, what if the Fedora community wants to all flock towards !valkey. we shouldn't be against that. wait and observe still makes sense to me here
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:38:22
should i cobble a proposal together that includes valkey-compat but without the obsoletes for F41?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:38:44
or do those go together like peas and carrots?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:39:01
I don't think that requires a change proposal afaik. a POC compat package already exists, it just needs to be improved upon. I was waiting to put too much into it until after getting fesco's response to the proposal here.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:39:12
mhayden: how would that differ from my proposal?
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:39:15
mhayden: I think we should decide to either vote now on the proposal as written or decide to wait and vote on it later.
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
19:39:28
From https://github.com/redis/redis/graphs/contributors, we have #4, #6, #7, #9 #15 for contributors from Redis working on valkey as maintainers. https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey/pull/345/files
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:39:40
hah i think i lost yours in the flow of text 😄
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:39:56
zbyszek's proposal is essentially agreeing to wait and vote later.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:40:17
Madelyn Olson: is the intent to guarantee with valkey 7.x that it is a drop-in replacement for redis?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:40:28
or rather, failure to do so is considered a bug to be fixed?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:40:47
mhayden gave a cookie to tstellar. They now have 16 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:40:48
that seems to be the crux of the concern
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:40:49
No Fedora Accounts users have the @reconditerose:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
19:40:54
Conan Kudo: Yeah, Valkey 7.2 will remain a drop in replacement for Redis 7.2 just with improvements.
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
19:40:59
Conan Kudo: Yeah, Valkey 7.2 will remain a drop in replacement for Redis 7.2 just with patch improvements.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:41:57
I think that's as strong of a statement as we could get for this.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:42:23
Proposal: Wait to vote on change #3203 as it is currently written with a plan to revisit it before F41 change freeze.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:42:41
And it addresses the concern about drop-in replacement issues
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:42:46
FWIW remi reached out and I added him to the valkey package as well. He's been the one maintaining the redis package for the last few years.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:43:15
jonathanspw: is mhayden's proposal acceptable for you?
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:43:18
+1 to mhayden's proposal
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:43:27
I'm fine with that proposal, but sounds like others are chomping at the bit to do it now...
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:43:36
Which one?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:43:39
and if "other distributions" is supposed to be a signal... it seems RHEL imported valkey already
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:43:51
^
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:43:56
`Proposal: Wait to vote on change #3203 as it is currently written with a plan to revisit it before F41 change freeze.`
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:44:02
+1 to wait
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:44:04
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/valkey
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:44:18
RHEL has a different release schedule, plus there are a lot of RHELs
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:44:28
Yes I'm 100% fine with waiting. Whole intent is f41, knowing that it's a few months away to freeze.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:44:46
okay, i think i've got +4 on waiting
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:44:47
OK, then +1 too to mhayden
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:45:11
OTOH, an acceptance today would likely get other distros following, even if implementation is delayed.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:45:16
it would be nice if you or Madelyn Olson or Kyle J. Davis could get a fedora magazine post or docs together for fedora users on how they can switch today if they want to
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:45:29
+1 to wait.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:45:41
okay, so +6 for waiting
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:45:44
I guess my ideal outcome would be accept today, wait for implementation.
<@linux_mclinuxface:matrix.org>
19:46:00
I'm glad to help or do this.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:01
-1 for waiting
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:17
I would prefer accepting now and deferring the obsoletes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:26
to beta freeze
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:43
that would also allow us to have test days for migrations and such
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:47:07
so we're +6, -1 on waiting on this proposal -- should we do an additional proposal for Conan Kudo's suggestion?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:47:17
I think the migration concern is overblown, but I also think it's not a bad idea to have specific community engagement for it
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:47:42
docs! https://fedoramagazine.org/write-for-the-fedora-magazine/
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:47:44
Accepting and delaying would likely get more eyes on the package and more people proactively upgrading which would be good from a testing perspective.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:47:56
Right.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:48:05
okay, let me capture the first proposal right quick
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:48:11
What's in the proposal besides the obsoletes that hasn't already been done?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:48:27
The proposal is _just_ about the obsoletes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:48:30
there's nothing else
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:48:33
!agreed Wait to vote on change #3203 as it is currently written with a plan to revisit it before F41 change freeze. (+6, 0, -1)
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:48:39
The compat package needs more work. What's there is just a quick POC.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:48:59
okay, let me type a new proposal Conan Kudo
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:49:09
👍️
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:49:33
Proposal: Accept the change as it is now, but defer the `Obsoletes:` until testing is done and we're closer to the F41 freeze (did i get this right, Conan Kudo?)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:49:45
yes
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:49:50
Conan Kudo: Ok, so you are proposing that we approve the Obsoletes being added with the caveat that they will be added X weeks from now.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:49:56
Yes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:50:32
Basically, accept the change, but have jonathanspw guard out the transition obsoletes until later
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:50:37
so many thumbs -- are we ready to vote on this second proplsal?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:50:39
so many thumbs -- are we ready to vote on this second proposal?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:50:57
it'd still be done in F41, but we'd stretch it out so that we can get more testing and refinement
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:50:59
I'm -1 for this second proposal. I don't think we should force users to upgrade.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:51:04
oh man, i set y'all up perfectly for more thumbs up emojis 🤦♂️
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:51:43
okay, proposal 2 looks like +1, -1 so far
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:51:44
this would accept valkey as the replacement now, but we had the concern of picking a winner too soon
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:51:46
What do you suggest happens to redis then? It will inevitably be ignored upstream. Upgrading is the lesser evil here, or rather, transitioning.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:51:59
well, eventually we will need to drop redis... and they would have to upgrade then right? but that isn't right yet
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:52:21
Conan Kudo: We keep the current version of redis in Fedora and user's can transition when they want.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:52:40
Conan Kudo: We keep the current version of redis in Fedora and users can transition when they want.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:52:46
they are going to be forced when the package is dropped no matter what
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:52:53
redis isn't staying in the distribution
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:53:11
Effectively, the difference between the previous (approved) proposal and the latest is whether we take the final decision now or later.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:53:17
the question is, is it going to be guided or are we going to have broken upgrades
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:53:30
are we also retiring redis as part of this change?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:54:20
Doesn't an obsolete imply that? (legit question)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:54:29
not necessarily
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:54:59
I do suspect that with having the redis maintainers added to the valkey package, that they would prefer to drop redis sooner rather than later
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:55:18
In practice yes, because it makes redis uninstallable.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:55:23
remi is on it. nathan hasn't asked.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:37
nathan asked as well
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:55:41
remi is on it the valkey package. nathan hasn't asked or reached out, but he also hasn't committed to the redis package in a few years
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:46
it was kind of roundabout, but he did ask
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:56:03
Oh I must've missed it. remi emailed me directly.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:56:27
having the proposal replies coming via discourse and mailing list got a bit unwieldy to try and follow
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:56:32
just added him, I thought you already had
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:57:31
if the current redis maintainers are also moving to valkey (and not other alts), that's a stronger argument to me
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:57:58
Neither of them showed any interest on the devel mailing list when I was packing redict, only valkey.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
19:58:30
Remi specifically said he will be maintaining valkey in rhel10
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:58:40
even I as someone who prefers copyleft stuff... it's hard to ignore that valkey has all the external contributors working on it
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:00:43
okay, we're an hour in htere
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:00:45
okay, we're an hour in here
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:00:57
and another datapoint: valkey is available in EPEL 7 because someone asked for it and nobody cared about redict for EPEL 7
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
20:00:59
and I'm not sure how much folks care about corporate contributors, but AWS, GCP, OCI, Huawei cloud are all asking their engineers to help maintain it.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:01:35
I'm still not sure what benefit there is to approving now with delayed implementation.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:01:40
OCI == Oracle Cloud Infrastructure?
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
20:01:53
Yes, lol
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
20:02:00
Yes, lol
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
20:02:16
Will basically be the first distro committing to a direction, and others will follow, preventing further fragmentation? Just a thought.
Will also attract more testing to the package if a decision is made.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
20:02:37
Will basically be the first distro committing to a direction, and others will follow, preventing further fragmentation? Just a thought.
Will also attract more testing to the package if a decision is made and more eyes on it before f41, if accepted and redis is obsoleted, is a good thing.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:02:49
It resonates well with our First and Features foundations
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:03:01
i'm with zbyszek -- we need to wrap up. would it be possible to get a COPR set up with the obsoletes so we could give the experience a try, jonathanspw ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:03:06
We are the trailblazer both in the community and in technology.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:03:16
That's already there and listed in the Change document.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
20:03:23
There already is one, but again the compat package needs a bit more work. I can commit to getting that work done.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:03:32
I like the idea of a Magazine article.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:03:51
okay, how about we revisit this in 2 weeks?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:03:58
that way we can see jonathanspw's work
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
20:04:11
that's fine with me
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
20:04:13
Seems fair enough to me
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:04:24
Can we make that 4 weeks, or even 6?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:04:33
hum, what about the stuff that requires redis? but I can ask that out of band
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
20:04:35
also fine with me
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:04:42
!action Revisit change #3203 in 2 weeks once jonathanspw has the work done on the compat pkg
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:04:56
Ack.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:05:15
okay, can we take further discussion of this one to discourse/mailing list ? 😉
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:05:29
thanks so much for the work jonathanspw
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:05:41
and thanks to Madelyn Olson and Kyle J. Davis for coming by! 👋
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:05:41
jonathanspw++
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:05:45
zbyszek gave a cookie to jonathanspw. They now have 15 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@reconditerose:matrix.org>
20:06:16
Yeah, Kyle J. Davis and I will get on the article. Let us know if there is anything else we can do
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:06:17
!topic Next week's chair
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:06:18
Madelyn Olson++, Kyle J. Davis++
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:06:22
No Fedora Accounts users have the @reconditerose:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:06:34
anyone want to chair the meeting next week?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:06:52
this is one of my last few fesco meetings 😭
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:07:24
mhayden: kudos for the tough decision to not run again.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:07:56
can't thank y'all enough for putting up with me :)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:08:29
🔎
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:08:46
I can do it, I guess.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:08:53
thanks, zbyszek
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:09:02
!action zbyszek to host next week's meeting
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:09:07
!topic Open floor
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:09:16
sending good thoughts to Stephen Gallagher and his kiddo ✨
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:09:35
anything else to cover today?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:09:59
okay, thanks everyone
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:10:04
y'all have a delightful week
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:10:10
!endmeeting