Re: Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 17:03 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016, at 04:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > I will note that I filed > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331864 - an unavoidable > > crash when installing from the Atomic installer image - in *April*, and > > no-one appears to care that the Atomic installer image has been broken > > since then. > > In this case, it's a combination of routing issue and bandwidth; the routing > issue here is that the people who watch the `anaconda` bugzilla entries don't > currently intersect much with Atomic Host. In general, please add me to > CC for any critical bugs you find. > > Or alternatively, raise any blockers on the cloud@ or atomic-devel@ lists. I CC'ed Adam Miller, figuring he'd CC anyone else who was interested, but OK, I'll add you in future. I think I have mentioned it a couple times before in IRC and stuff, but never mind. ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG
On 26 August 2016 at 16:45, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 14:27 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:43:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> > >> > There are a lot of images being produced and I have no idea if they're >> > really needed. That a release blocking image (cloud base qcow2) nearly >> > caused F25 alpha to slip because it was busted at least suggests it >> > probably shouldn't be release blocking anymore. FWIW, cloud base qcow2 >> > now gets grub2 in lieu of extlinux as the work around for the >> > breakage. >> >> Puts us back at 231M for the qcow2, instead of 195M for F24. Ah well; >> at least it boots. >> >> Rather than having the Cloud Base Image — or its Server-based successor >> — be blocking, I'd like to it as see an updated, automatically-tested >> two-week image. Ideally, we'd have a solid one on release day, but if >> we don't for some reason, it'd be less of a crisis. >> >> We also, obviously, have a process breakdown with what to do with >> failure reports from autocloud. > > Right. We *have* the automated testing, but automated testing is no use > if no-one looks at the results and fixes the bugs. This is not really a > QA responsibility (even though I seem to be the one who always winds up > doing it for Server and Workstation; I do not have time to do it for > Cloud). Of course, in an 'ideal' world we'd have a more CI-ish setup > where changes that cause the tests to start failing get rejected, and > people are working on that - but the fact that we don't have it already > is not an excuse to ignore the test systems we already have in place. > > I will note that I filed > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331864 - an unavoidable > crash when installing from the Atomic installer image - in *April*, and > no-one appears to care that the Atomic installer image has been broken > since then. This bug still shows up like clockwork in every F25 and > Rawhide compose tested in openQA. It makes me wonder why I put in the > effort to implement the openQA testing, if no-one cares when it finds a > bug. I feel your pain on this but think it is also a good thing. Maybe no-one cares about this target but we didn't have data on it until you put in a tool which could measure how much people actually care. Look at these tools as part of the cost people need to pay for having various targets of the distribution. People say they want stuff as long as it is free to them even if they never use it.. but when a cost is actually associated with the thing they are a lot pickier about what they want to spend on. -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016, at 04:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I will note that I filed > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331864 - an unavoidable > crash when installing from the Atomic installer image - in *April*, and > no-one appears to care that the Atomic installer image has been broken > since then. In this case, it's a combination of routing issue and bandwidth; the routing issue here is that the people who watch the `anaconda` bugzilla entries don't currently intersect much with Atomic Host. In general, please add me to CC for any critical bugs you find. Or alternatively, raise any blockers on the cloud@ or atomic-devel@ lists. ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 14:27 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:43:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > There are a lot of images being produced and I have no idea if they're > > really needed. That a release blocking image (cloud base qcow2) nearly > > caused F25 alpha to slip because it was busted at least suggests it > > probably shouldn't be release blocking anymore. FWIW, cloud base qcow2 > > now gets grub2 in lieu of extlinux as the work around for the > > breakage. > > Puts us back at 231M for the qcow2, instead of 195M for F24. Ah well; > at least it boots. > > Rather than having the Cloud Base Image — or its Server-based successor > — be blocking, I'd like to it as see an updated, automatically-tested > two-week image. Ideally, we'd have a solid one on release day, but if > we don't for some reason, it'd be less of a crisis. > > We also, obviously, have a process breakdown with what to do with > failure reports from autocloud. Right. We *have* the automated testing, but automated testing is no use if no-one looks at the results and fixes the bugs. This is not really a QA responsibility (even though I seem to be the one who always winds up doing it for Server and Workstation; I do not have time to do it for Cloud). Of course, in an 'ideal' world we'd have a more CI-ish setup where changes that cause the tests to start failing get rejected, and people are working on that - but the fact that we don't have it already is not an excuse to ignore the test systems we already have in place. I will note that I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331864 - an unavoidable crash when installing from the Atomic installer image - in *April*, and no-one appears to care that the Atomic installer image has been broken since then. This bug still shows up like clockwork in every F25 and Rawhide compose tested in openQA. It makes me wonder why I put in the effort to implement the openQA testing, if no-one cares when it finds a bug. ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Atomic ISO images still using wrong tree
On 08/25/2016 12:05 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 08/25/2016 04:07 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> Adding rel-eng. They might be able to help us out more on this topic. >> >> Could you maybe add a little bit more information? Like what tree is >> expected to be there etc? Presumably this is the two week release? >> > > > Hey Peter, > > Thanks for the reply. It looks like the latest two week release [1] that was > released > yesterday shows this problem: > > -bash-4.3# rpm-ostree status > TIMESTAMP (UTC) VERSION ID OSNAMEREFSPEC > > * 2016-06-15 09:57:04 24.39 2c7d41e8a6 fedora-atomic > fedora-atomic:fedora-atomic/24/x86_64/docker-host > > Honestly I have no idea where it is getting the wrong information from. I > thought > it was pointing at the old ref: > http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/atomic/24/refs/heads/fedora-atomic/f24/ > but that one is actually from 7/20: > > 2016-07-20 00:05:19 24.8 955a54ca5c fedora-atomic > fedora-atomic:fedora-atomic/f24/x86_64/docker-host > > So this iso is being build from a tree even older than that maybe it is > pulling from > some old koji internal location (from before f24 release?) > > Dusty > > [1] > https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/atomic/stable/Atomic/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Atomic-dvd-x86_64-24-20160820.0.iso Dennis has looked into this and opened up a PR that we think will fix the issue: https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/69 ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:43:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > There are a lot of images being produced and I have no idea if they're > really needed. That a release blocking image (cloud base qcow2) nearly > caused F25 alpha to slip because it was busted at least suggests it > probably shouldn't be release blocking anymore. FWIW, cloud base qcow2 > now gets grub2 in lieu of extlinux as the work around for the > breakage. Puts us back at 231M for the qcow2, instead of 195M for F24. Ah well; at least it boots. Rather than having the Cloud Base Image — or its Server-based successor — be blocking, I'd like to it as see an updated, automatically-tested two-week image. Ideally, we'd have a solid one on release day, but if we don't for some reason, it'd be less of a crisis. We also, obviously, have a process breakdown with what to do with failure reports from autocloud. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Discussion on changing the name of Working Group
> I am also willing to volunteer for this. As the base image is moving to > server wg, and my work related to rel-eng testing side is stable, I can > refocus myself to the Fedora Atomic host in the same way I was doing > base image. Last few months were about jumping into too many things. I > hope that I will be helpful in this case. Awesome! > > Kushal > -- > Fedora Cloud Engineer > CPython Core Developer > https://kushaldas.in > https://dgplug.org > ___ > cloud mailing list > cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Discussion on changing the name of Working Group
On 25/08/16, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 08/25/2016 02:51 PM, Jason Brooks wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > >> > >> Others have made some good comments in this thread. I'm really not as > >> concerned with these specific questions. > >> > >> I think the deeper problem is that there needs to be (I think) a person > >> who is clearly identified to lead this effort (and ultimately this group). > >> I think a lot of times it is hard for contributors to make meaningful > >> contributions because the group is scattered and there is not really any > >> one person to ask for a definitive answer on things. Sometimes a user will > >> get a response back to a question/request/contribution, and sometimes not. > >> I'm not saying we need one person to do all of the work, or to even be > >> the expert in every area, but one person to at least know who is > >> responsible > >> for each part and to track down when things don't get done. > >> > >> As a group we haven't been very thorough and that has led to some > >> serious issues with some of our shipped bits at times. To be honest I > >> think we just need some dedicated leadership. Someone who crosses the > >> Ts and dots the Is and greases the skids so that it is easy to on-board > >> and make contributions. Hopefully this would lead to increased contribution > >> activity and a more vibrant community. > > > > This is sort of what I've been doing w/ CentOS Atomic, and I can do > > the same w/ Fedora Atomic -- there's a lot of overlap. > > > > You've done an amazing job with CentOS Atomic. I think the best approach > would actually be to have an additional "leader" person that worked hand in > hand with you as the CentOS lead. If we can't get an additional person > then I would certainly support you in that role for Fedora, but I > would hope to not overload you too much. I am also willing to volunteer for this. As the base image is moving to server wg, and my work related to rel-eng testing side is stable, I can refocus myself to the Fedora Atomic host in the same way I was doing base image. Last few months were about jumping into too many things. I hope that I will be helpful in this case. Kushal -- Fedora Cloud Engineer CPython Core Developer https://kushaldas.in https://dgplug.org ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
