Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On 08/24/2015 10:52 AM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: I'm well past the 72 hours, so this is probably able to be ignored, but ... On 08/21/2015 06:15 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: But I'd also disagree we need to spin up a new SIG around this when the mapping of the Cloud SIG and Atomic interest is close to (if not exactly) 1:1. It sounds like we are talking about creating sub-working groups of fedora-cloud for base, atomic, and docker image. That does start to smell a bit like SIGs to me ... To me, this feels like spinning up unnecessary committees. Folks who are interested in working on Atomic host specifically will work on that, folks who want to work on docker images will work on that, etc. All of that fits the same umbrella and eventual story (we don't have a complete story without Atomic host, we don't have a complete story without a good Fedora Docker image, and we don't have a complete story unless the host works well in public/private cloud) so I don't know that spinning up SIGs for each piece gets us anywhere. Also - those are implementation details *if* the working group decides it wants to pursue Atomic as the main story for Cloud. Can we take a vote today during the Cloud meeting? Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On 08/18/2015 08:34 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Aug 18, 2015 5:54 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com mailto:j...@redhat.com wrote: We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away - but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing. If it won't be the focus of the cloud work group, who do you expect to monitor its creation and correct operation? I worry that it will fall by the wayside and bit rot into a state of disrepair. Realized this morning that I responded face-to-face on this but not in email. D'oh! Most of the work that would go into making the base image is happening already. We need to test it, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of churn or major lifting required to keep creating the image. We don't seem to have a lot of ideas for making the image more interesting - so there won't be a lot of work from release to release there. (If we were proposing a radical overhaul of some sort and saying it's not the main focus then I would agree it's going to be problematic.) Does anybody else feel we are unable to maintain the image as a sort of basic offering for folks not ready to jump on Atomic? Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
Given: jzb Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition. and mattdm For that, we need the Cloud Base to have *internal* visibility and connections, but it doesn't need to confuse the marketing message. I think moving the focus of Cloud SIG to focus on Atomic would confuse folks more than the currently slim messaging around the Cloud SIG goals. I think CentOS has the right approach with a separate Atomic SIG, and I propose that we follow that model. Split Atomic into it's own SIG, continue the Cloud SIG to focus on cloud things. Atomic is a new way of doing everything. OS management changes, package management changes, Docker + K8S + Nulecule + Atomicapp + ? + ? + ?. We are trying to move at a much more rapid pace than the rest of the Fedora Project products (see the 2 week release proposal). We are breaking things at a much more rapid pace than other products as well. Lots of initial answers on ask / IRC wind up as, update the tree see if it's still broken. I don't think that if you say the word cloud in a room of IT folks today, that over 1% are going to think Atomic. They think OpenStack, OpenShift, CloudFoundry, Eucalyptus, AWS, ownCloud, etc. Fedora as foundation, Fedora as tenant, Fedora as a Service! The new Cloud SIG draft reflects those use cases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_SIG-new-draft. Fedora saying well when *we* say cloud we mean Atomic not what you think and having to explain it doesn't sound like a win. And while there's overlap in uses like cloud-init, Atomic is much more likely to want a completely new compatible implementation because the dependency tree makes maintenance more complex than a Fedora OpenStack guest image will need to care about. (See my previous rants on sizing ;-) ). Or a Fedora Server optimized for running nova-compute. The Cloud Base Image and the Atomic host or the Docker Base Image don't and shouldn't have much in common because the use cases are different. I do think that the Cloud SIG does need better messaging about its intents and goals. The new SIG draft looks like a step in the right direction to me. Define major focus areas (run IaaS on Fedora, run Fedora in IaaS, etc) then layer in use cases and projects from the group. A new Atomic SIG would focus on stabilizing the Atomic host, the delivery process, and the Docker base image. Atomic hosts are all about running Docker workloads, so that makes sense to couple. As containerization grows, I could see the need for moving Docker image management somewhere else. Did I miss the 72 hr window? - matt m On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:04:33PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users using current fedora atomic image or considerable users using the cloud image mostly for running containers and going to increase in future ? I understand that Atomic host having newer technology which is better for a world of containers but just want to make sure the decision is driven by user needs. I'm at LinuxCon, which is also at the same time CloudOpen and ContainerCon. The sample size is small and the audience skewed, but: I've talked to several (three) people using/testing Fedora Atomic, at least one of them fairly seriously; no one using Cloud Base image. That's not to say that they don't exist (hi there!), but I think user interest/excitement around Atomic is clear. Perhaps more crucially as we make this plan, I think the people who want basic-Fedora-in-the-cloud are less likely to be a wedge audience, where we can market that as their first exposure to Fedora and from there possibly grow into more areas. Rather, they're going to be people who already know Fedora, or are already interested in us in general, and then are looking to have that in a cloud environment. For that, we need the Cloud Base to have *internal* visibility and connections, but it doesn't need to confuse the marketing message. Specifically, I'd like it to go in the Other Downloads section of https://getfedora.org/en/cloud/download/, introduced like this: Looking for a plain, non-Atomic image optimized for cloud environments? Download Fedora Cloud Base Image: [...] -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On 08/21/2015 06:49 AM, Matt Micene wrote: Given: jzb Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition. and mattdm For that, we need the Cloud Base to have *internal* visibility and connections, but it doesn't need to confuse the marketing message. I think moving the focus of Cloud SIG to focus on Atomic would confuse folks more than the currently slim messaging around the Cloud SIG goals. I think CentOS has the right approach with a separate Atomic SIG, and I propose that we follow that model. Split Atomic into it's own SIG, continue the Cloud SIG to focus on cloud things. The question is what cloud things? In talking to other folks about this - e.g. what could or should we be doing to make cloud more interesting - I haven't heard a lot of ideas. The message right now is we have an image you can use, it does the standard things... we're kind of out of ideas to make it more interesting. Atomic is a new way of doing everything. OS management changes, package management changes, Docker + K8S + Nulecule + Atomicapp + ? + ? + ?. We are trying to move at a much more rapid pace than the rest of the Fedora Project products (see the 2 week release proposal). We are breaking things at a much more rapid pace than other products as well. Lots of initial answers on ask / IRC wind up as, update the tree see if it's still broken. I don't think that if you say the word cloud in a room of IT folks today, that over 1% are going to think Atomic. They think OpenStack, OpenShift, CloudFoundry, Eucalyptus, AWS, ownCloud, etc. Fedora as foundation, Fedora as tenant, Fedora as a Service! The new Cloud SIG draft reflects those use cases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_SIG-new-draft. Fedora saying well when *we* say cloud we mean Atomic not what you think and having to explain it doesn't sound like a win. That draft is from 2013. It's a bit out of date. Note name of sig != name of deliverable. There's no reason we have to keep a strong association with the name cloud on the site / marketing materials. But I'd also disagree we need to spin up a new SIG around this when the mapping of the Cloud SIG and Atomic interest is close to (if not exactly) 1:1. Note also there's not a lot of work in things like OpenStack on Fedora because it's so fast moving. The RDO folks tend to target CentOS rather than Fedora, though I *think* that running on Fedora is also w/in scope. (I'm CC'ing Rich Bowen here b/c he's far more in the know about our OpenStack/RDO efforts than I.) And while there's overlap in uses like cloud-init, Atomic is much more likely to want a completely new compatible implementation because the dependency tree makes maintenance more complex than a Fedora OpenStack guest image will need to care about. (See my previous rants on sizing ;-) ). Or a Fedora Server optimized for running nova-compute. The Cloud Base Image and the Atomic host or the Docker Base Image don't and shouldn't have much in common because the use cases are different. I do think that the Cloud SIG does need better messaging about its intents and goals. The new SIG draft looks like a step in the right direction to me. Define major focus areas (run IaaS on Fedora, run Fedora in IaaS, etc) then layer in use cases and projects from the group. Again - it's several years old, so I'm not sure that the new draft is applicable here. :-) A new Atomic SIG would focus on stabilizing the Atomic host, the delivery process, and the Docker base image. Atomic hosts are all about running Docker workloads, so that makes sense to couple. As containerization grows, I could see the need for moving Docker image management somewhere else. Did I miss the 72 hr window? Not quite. Other thoughts? Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
- Original Message - From: Matt Micene nzwul...@gmail.com To: Fedora Cloud SIG cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 6:49:18 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition Given: jzb Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition. and mattdm For that, we need the Cloud Base to have *internal* visibility and connections, but it doesn't need to confuse the marketing message. I think moving the focus of Cloud SIG to focus on Atomic would confuse folks more than the currently slim messaging around the Cloud SIG goals. I think CentOS has the right approach with a separate Atomic SIG, and I propose that we follow that model. Split Atomic into it's own SIG, continue the Cloud SIG to focus on cloud things. Atomic is a new way of doing everything. OS management changes, package management changes, Docker + K8S + Nulecule + Atomicapp + ? + ? + ?. We are trying to move at a much more rapid pace than the rest of the Fedora Project products (see the 2 week release proposal). We are breaking things at a much more rapid pace than other products as well. Lots of initial answers on ask / IRC wind up as, update the tree see if it's still broken. I don't think that if you say the word cloud in a room of IT folks today, that over 1% are going to think Atomic. They think OpenStack, OpenShift, CloudFoundry, Eucalyptus, AWS, ownCloud, etc. Fedora as foundation, Fedora as tenant, Fedora as a Service! The new Cloud SIG draft reflects those use cases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_SIG-new-draft. Fedora saying well when *we* say cloud we mean Atomic not what you think and having to explain it doesn't sound like a win. Thanks for pointing to this doc (though I see now that it was last updated in 2013). It's a pretty ambitious set of goals -- esp things like getting various IaaS platforms running on Fedora. An important question is what our contributor base wants to work on -- I haven't seen much mention of things like getting IaaS running on Fedora in the cloud sig meetings. For the cloud image itself, I don't fully understand why I'd want a specialized cloud image over a minimal Fedora image -- being on Amazon and making minimal, but otherwise stock Fedora images available feels like a core distro task to me. It's true, though, that CentOS has both Cloud and Atomic SIGs, both with plenty to do, so that model might fit here, as well. No need to wrench the SIG away from non-atomic matters if that's where the SIG contributors want to place their efforts. The question is, where do the SIG members wish to focus... I guess that's what this thread is about. Jason And while there's overlap in uses like cloud-init, Atomic is much more likely to want a completely new compatible implementation because the dependency tree makes maintenance more complex than a Fedora OpenStack guest image will need to care about. (See my previous rants on sizing ;-) ). Or a Fedora Server optimized for running nova-compute. The Cloud Base Image and the Atomic host or the Docker Base Image don't and shouldn't have much in common because the use cases are different. I do think that the Cloud SIG does need better messaging about its intents and goals. The new SIG draft looks like a step in the right direction to me. Define major focus areas (run IaaS on Fedora, run Fedora in IaaS, etc) then layer in use cases and projects from the group. A new Atomic SIG would focus on stabilizing the Atomic host, the delivery process, and the Docker base image. Atomic hosts are all about running Docker workloads, so that makes sense to couple. As containerization grows, I could see the need for moving Docker image management somewhere else. Did I miss the 72 hr window? - matt m On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:04:33PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users using current fedora atomic image or considerable users using the cloud image mostly for running containers and going to increase in future ? I understand that Atomic host having newer technology which is better for a world of containers but just want to make sure the decision is driven by user needs. I'm at LinuxCon, which is also at the same time CloudOpen and ContainerCon. The sample size is small and the audience skewed, but: I've talked to several (three) people using/testing Fedora Atomic, at least one of them fairly seriously; no one using Cloud Base image. That's not to say that they don't exist (hi there!), but I think user interest/excitement around Atomic is clear. Perhaps more crucially as we make this plan, I think the people who want basic
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
Ok I didn't notice the date, but, it is at least a clear set of goals. If that's not the focus / direction of the SIG now, then I'm sure that's part of the issue when we hear: we have an image you can use, it does the standard things... we're kind of out of ideas to make it more interesting. I get that the name doesn't have to match the deliverable, it makes it clearer to the outside when trying to get help, trying to get contributors, trying to get the message out. For the cloud image itself, I don't fully understand why I'd want a specialized cloud image over a minimal Fedora image -- being on Amazon and making minimal, but otherwise stock Fedora images available feels like a core distro task to me. This does make sense, if the Server team is willing to take it on. There are a few things that are IaaS specific (cloud-utils-growpart is forever burned into my mind now) but generally might be able to be treated like an arch or a spin. If none of the old-new activities are really ongoing in the SIG, and the main focus of the current SIG members is Atomic, I've got no issues. I guess I always figured we were a small if vocal minority of the SIG membership. - matt m On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Jason Brooks jbro...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Matt Micene nzwul...@gmail.com To: Fedora Cloud SIG cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 6:49:18 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition Given: jzb Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition. and mattdm For that, we need the Cloud Base to have *internal* visibility and connections, but it doesn't need to confuse the marketing message. I think moving the focus of Cloud SIG to focus on Atomic would confuse folks more than the currently slim messaging around the Cloud SIG goals. I think CentOS has the right approach with a separate Atomic SIG, and I propose that we follow that model. Split Atomic into it's own SIG, continue the Cloud SIG to focus on cloud things. Atomic is a new way of doing everything. OS management changes, package management changes, Docker + K8S + Nulecule + Atomicapp + ? + ? + ?. We are trying to move at a much more rapid pace than the rest of the Fedora Project products (see the 2 week release proposal). We are breaking things at a much more rapid pace than other products as well. Lots of initial answers on ask / IRC wind up as, update the tree see if it's still broken. I don't think that if you say the word cloud in a room of IT folks today, that over 1% are going to think Atomic. They think OpenStack, OpenShift, CloudFoundry, Eucalyptus, AWS, ownCloud, etc. Fedora as foundation, Fedora as tenant, Fedora as a Service! The new Cloud SIG draft reflects those use cases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_SIG-new-draft. Fedora saying well when *we* say cloud we mean Atomic not what you think and having to explain it doesn't sound like a win. Thanks for pointing to this doc (though I see now that it was last updated in 2013). It's a pretty ambitious set of goals -- esp things like getting various IaaS platforms running on Fedora. An important question is what our contributor base wants to work on -- I haven't seen much mention of things like getting IaaS running on Fedora in the cloud sig meetings. For the cloud image itself, I don't fully understand why I'd want a specialized cloud image over a minimal Fedora image -- being on Amazon and making minimal, but otherwise stock Fedora images available feels like a core distro task to me. It's true, though, that CentOS has both Cloud and Atomic SIGs, both with plenty to do, so that model might fit here, as well. No need to wrench the SIG away from non-atomic matters if that's where the SIG contributors want to place their efforts. The question is, where do the SIG members wish to focus... I guess that's what this thread is about. Jason And while there's overlap in uses like cloud-init, Atomic is much more likely to want a completely new compatible implementation because the dependency tree makes maintenance more complex than a Fedora OpenStack guest image will need to care about. (See my previous rants on sizing ;-) ). Or a Fedora Server optimized for running nova-compute. The Cloud Base Image and the Atomic host or the Docker Base Image don't and shouldn't have much in common because the use cases are different. I do think that the Cloud SIG does need better messaging about its intents and goals. The new SIG draft looks like a step in the right direction to me. Define major focus areas (run IaaS on Fedora, run Fedora in IaaS, etc) then layer in use cases and projects from the group. A new Atomic SIG would focus
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: Hi all, For the folks who were at Flock last week, this is a recap of the discussion we had and what I recall as the general agreement in the room. If my memory has failed me, please add or correct as necessary. For folks who weren't at Flock (or were, but not in the cloud working group meeting), this is a brief recap of what we discussed and is proposed - but *not* decided. I would like to reach a decision / consensus here, so let's discuss here and I'll ask the working group members to explicitly +1 (or not) within 72 hours. But absent any hard -1s, better proposals, etc. then I'd like to close the discussion within that timeframe so we can move on to discussing with FESCo and other groups (Websites, marketing) who we'll need to sync with. Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition. However, we know that Atomic doesn't fit well in the standard Fedora six-month cycle, so we'd further propose making the two-week releases the default deliverable - and work on appropriate testing so that users who are using Fedora Atomic can expect that their containers and Kubernetes orchestration won't break, but also will not need to care whether the underlying release is based on F23, rawhide, etc. This is going to require a lot of work to be done on testing so we can ensure that we're not breaking anything and containers just work on Atomic as users follow the updates on the 2-week cycle. This will, I believe, need to go to FESCo and we'll have to put in some serious cycles on documentation and work on marketing this. It's also worth noting that this will mean very frequent releases and marketing touchpoints as opposed to just alpha, beta, and final releases every six months. We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away - but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing. Finally, we also discussed that the host was only part of the larger effort - we also need to pour some attention into improving the Docker image, making that smaller and a better option. Thoughts, comments, flames? Did I miss anything? For the sake of completion, Kushal and many others pointed out, that we need to ensure that we clearly highlight on our downloads page and at other appropriate location that we still support base image. The move should not confuse users and should not give an impression that Atomic is the only cloud offering that we have. (Apologies if this is not the most coherent summary - I'm typing this from the floor of LinuxCon North America and not able to give this the amount of revision I would usually give for something of this importance. However, time is a factor as the decision is required to move forward on other items.) Thanks, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:04:33PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users using current fedora atomic image or considerable users using the cloud image mostly for running containers and going to increase in future ? I understand that Atomic host having newer technology which is better for a world of containers but just want to make sure the decision is driven by user needs. I'm at LinuxCon, which is also at the same time CloudOpen and ContainerCon. The sample size is small and the audience skewed, but: I've talked to several (three) people using/testing Fedora Atomic, at least one of them fairly seriously; no one using Cloud Base image. That's not to say that they don't exist (hi there!), but I think user interest/excitement around Atomic is clear. Perhaps more crucially as we make this plan, I think the people who want basic-Fedora-in-the-cloud are less likely to be a wedge audience, where we can market that as their first exposure to Fedora and from there possibly grow into more areas. Rather, they're going to be people who already know Fedora, or are already interested in us in general, and then are looking to have that in a cloud environment. For that, we need the Cloud Base to have *internal* visibility and connections, but it doesn't need to confuse the marketing message. Specifically, I'd like it to go in the Other Downloads section of https://getfedora.org/en/cloud/download/, introduced like this: Looking for a plain, non-Atomic image optimized for cloud environments? Download Fedora Cloud Base Image: [...] -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On 08/19/2015 04:24 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: Hi all, For the folks who were at Flock last week, this is a recap of the discussion we had and what I recall as the general agreement in the room. If my memory has failed me, please add or correct as necessary. For folks who weren't at Flock (or were, but not in the cloud working group meeting), this is a brief recap of what we discussed and is proposed - but *not* decided. I would like to reach a decision / consensus here, so let's discuss here and I'll ask the working group members to explicitly +1 (or not) within 72 hours. But absent any hard -1s, better proposals, etc. then I'd like to close the discussion within that timeframe so we can move on to discussing with FESCo and other groups (Websites, marketing) who we'll need to sync with. Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition. Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users using current fedora atomic image or considerable users using the cloud image mostly for running containers and going to increase in future ? I understand that Atomic host having newer technology which is better for a world of containers but just want to make sure the decision is driven by user needs. However, we know that Atomic doesn't fit well in the standard Fedora six-month cycle, so we'd further propose making the two-week releases the default deliverable - and work on appropriate testing so that users who are using Fedora Atomic can expect that their containers and Kubernetes orchestration won't break, but also will not need to care whether the underlying release is based on F23, rawhide, etc. This is going to require a lot of work to be done on testing so we can ensure that we're not breaking anything and containers just work on Atomic as users follow the updates on the 2-week cycle. This will, I believe, need to go to FESCo and we'll have to put in some serious cycles on documentation and work on marketing this. It's also worth noting that this will mean very frequent releases and marketing touchpoints as opposed to just alpha, beta, and final releases every six months. We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away - but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing. Finally, we also discussed that the host was only part of the larger effort - we also need to pour some attention into improving the Docker image, making that smaller and a better option. +1 improving the docker image. Thoughts, comments, flames? Did I miss anything? (Apologies if this is not the most coherent summary - I'm typing this from the floor of LinuxCon North America and not able to give this the amount of revision I would usually give for something of this importance. However, time is a factor as the decision is required to move forward on other items.) Thanks, jzb ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On 08/19/2015 10:34 AM, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users using current fedora atomic image It means we are seeing more activity and excitement in this area, more room for growth, and ultimately think it's going to be more widely used. Matthew's slides at Flock indicated that there was some decent adoption of Atomic but we don't have huge numbers yet. But we've only had two releases and this is still an early area... Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:06:34PM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote: It means we are seeing more activity and excitement in this area, more room for growth, and ultimately think it's going to be more widely used. Matthew's slides at Flock indicated that there was some decent adoption of Atomic but we don't have huge numbers yet. But we've only had two releases and this is still an early area... qcow2 downloads are roughly half-and-half. I don't have stats for ec2-click-to-launch (because I forgot to ask for them.) And, the standard caveats apply: each download may correspond to one instantiation to try it out, or none at all, or a million. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:59:00PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: qcow2 downloads are roughly half-and-half. I don't have stats for ec2-click-to-launch (because I forgot to ask for them.) And, the This is averaging a little more than 10 a day, combined base and atomic. That's after spambots are filtered out. It's kind of a pain to sort out which are atomic and which aren't, because it just has the AMI ids - I'll look at it broken down by that later. This just shows us when someone started the launch process, not whether they have an actual account and do anything. It also doesn't reflect usage very well, because for anyone serious, they'll copy the AMI ID and then use the API to launch. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
On Aug 18, 2015 5:54 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away - but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing. If it won't be the focus of the cloud work group, who do you expect to monitor its creation and correct operation? I worry that it will fall by the wayside and bit rot into a state of disrepair. josh ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
- Original Message - From: Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com To: Fedora Cloud SIG cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:54:16 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition. +1 This gives Fedora Cloud a great First story to tell. Finally, we also discussed that the host was only part of the larger effort - we also need to pour some attention into improving the Docker image, making that smaller and a better option. +1 It would be great if the Fedora image could really challenge some of these ultralight options in size. Jason ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
