Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On 06/15/2016 11:07 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: Previously (at last year's Flock and after), we've talked about replacing the Fedora Cloud Edition with Fedora Atomic Edition. (See previous discussion on this list if you're unfamiliar with this decision and its rationale.) We hadn't actually had much movement on _doing_ that, though, so one of the goals of last week's Cloud WG FAD was to take the next concrete steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go even further — not just a single container host, but a full container cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_. This is awesome. I've already created a simple one off blog post using Fedora 24 & Origin on AWS as a single host. I'd like to continue iterating through that into a cluster. Roughly, I see that as: 1. Make sure we have agreement from the current Cloud WG members who couldn't be there. We don't want to make big decisions like this entirely in a room somewhere without full community input. I'm onboard. 2. Reformulate WG members to match new target; possibly some of the current WG members are more interested in other aspects of cloud computing, like continuing work on the Cloud Base image. That's absolutely fine (beyond fine - it's awesome!), but the whole point of the WG structure is to support the editions. 3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it really is actually important. Possibilities include: - Fedora Container Cluster Edition - Fedora OpenShift Edition - Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition - Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition and all have their plusses and minuses. 4. Update governance documents: that's: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_PRD - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp, but we should definitely get that stamp.) 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on those. ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Previously (at last year's Flock and after), we've talked about > replacing the Fedora Cloud Edition with Fedora Atomic Edition. (See > previous discussion on this list if you're unfamiliar with this > decision and its rationale.) > > We hadn't actually had much movement on _doing_ that, though, so one of > the goals of last week's Cloud WG FAD was to take the next concrete > steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and > teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go > even further — not just a single container host, but a full container > cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting > _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_. Surprising. > Roughly, I see that as: > > 1. Make sure we have agreement from the current Cloud WG members who >couldn't be there. We don't want to make big decisions like this >entirely in a room somewhere without full community input. > > 2. Reformulate WG members to match new target; possibly some of the >current WG members are more interested in other aspects of cloud >computing, like continuing work on the Cloud Base image. That's >absolutely fine (beyond fine - it's awesome!), but the whole point >of the WG structure is to support the editions. > > 3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it >really is actually important. Possibilities include: > >- Fedora Container Cluster Edition >- Fedora OpenShift Edition >- Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition >- Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition > >and all have their plusses and minuses. > > 4. Update governance documents: that's: >- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_PRD >- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance > > 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change >Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp, >but we should definitely get that stamp.) When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings, and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even Atomic Host)? While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem. > 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required >technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on >those. I'm curious to see what those might be. josh ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On 06/15/2016 09:07 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > 3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it >really is actually important. Possibilities include: > >- Fedora Container Cluster Edition >- Fedora OpenShift Edition >- Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition >- Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition "Foosion" ;-) Seriously, I like Container Cluster or Container Cloud. Maybe we should have a contest? -- -- Josh Berkus Project Atomic Red Hat OSAS ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:17:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and > > teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go > > even further — not just a single container host, but a full container > > cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting > > _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_. > Surprising. Is it? That indicates something of a disconnect, I guess. It looked to me like things were going this way for a while, and the thing I'm surprised about is the unanimity of interest in doing it sooner rather than later. > > 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change > >Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp, > >but we should definitely get that stamp.) > When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to > Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings, > and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even > Atomic Host)? While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG > members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will > not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem. Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech). It might be a good idea to have a new mailing list for the new edition WG, and keep this one focused on Cloud SIG stuff across all Editions. As for Atomic... Atomic Host is a building block for the new thing, and I think we'd continue to make that block available on its own to those who want that, but not necessarily promote it. > > 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required > >technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on > >those. > I'm curious to see what those might be. Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on whatever we promote as an installer/configurator. Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different cluster roles; I dunno. We'll also need a mirroring solution for ostrees. :-/ QA: Tim Flink was at the FAD and made it quite clear that the Fedora QA team as it stands doesn't have bandwidth for more deliverables, but would be glad to consult. We'll need to a) rely on a lot of automation and b) bring in new people. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:17:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and >> > teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go >> > even further — not just a single container host, but a full container >> > cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting >> > _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_. >> Surprising. > > Is it? That indicates something of a disconnect, I guess. It looked to > me like things were going this way for a while, and the thing I'm > surprised about is the unanimity of interest in doing it sooner rather > than later. To me it is. As I said originally, something that might be self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the IRC meetings, etc. It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y instead." Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y were bad or negative. Just surprising. The only thing that doesn't surprise me is that the original plan was deemed not enough, because that's just how cloud is. >> > 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change >> >Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp, >> >but we should definitely get that stamp.) >> When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to >> Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings, >> and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even >> Atomic Host)? While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG >> members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will >> not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem. > > Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora > Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate > to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or > the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech). Have we formally redefined it as such? I feel like either I've been asleep and missed a lot (I don't think so?), people are having discussions around these things in places that are harder to follow, or people are making assumptions. > It might be a good idea to have a new mailing list for the new edition > WG, and keep this one focused on Cloud SIG stuff across all Editions. > > As for Atomic... Atomic Host is a building block for the new thing, and > I think we'd continue to make that block available on its own to those > who want that, but not necessarily promote it. Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well. Which is where some of my surprise comes from I guess. I thought we'd finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a fundamentals level. That's still possible I guess. >> > 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required >> >technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on >> >those. >> I'm curious to see what those might be. > > Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on > whatever we promote as an installer/configurator. I don't see a need for a new logo. It's throwing out the well done and now somewhat familiar branding work we've built up. However, people like new pretty things so whatever. > Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la > current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something > else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host > continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different > cluster roles; I dunno. I kind of think you want to stop calling them releases to be honest. They aren't releases in the grand Fedora sense of the word. They're bundled and focused updates (service packs?) of content within the grand Fedora release cycle. I don't believe you'll get to actual true separate releases for Editions until modularity enables such a thing. > We'll also need a mirroring solution for ostrees. :-/ Needed for Atomic Workstation as well. > QA: Tim Flink was at the FAD and made it quite clear that the Fedora QA > team as it stands doesn't have bandwidth for more deliverables, but > would be glad to consult. We'll need to a) rely on a lot of automation > and b) bring in new people. \o/ All of the above sounds fine, but none of it really seems to have anything to do with FESCo. josh ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On 06/15/2016 11:09 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:17:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually should go even further — not just a single container host, but a full container cluster solution based on OpenShift Origin. So, rather than letting _that_ linger, let's work on the next steps for _that_. >>> Surprising. >> >> Is it? That indicates something of a disconnect, I guess. It looked to >> me like things were going this way for a while, and the thing I'm >> surprised about is the unanimity of interest in doing it sooner rather >> than later. > > To me it is. As I said originally, something that might be > self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the > IRC meetings, etc. It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing > X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y > instead." Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y > were bad or negative. Just surprising. > > The only thing that doesn't surprise me is that the original plan was > deemed not enough, because that's just how cloud is. Summary: We've decided that, like Workstation, we want to focus on deliverable, complete OS environments for users instead of "parts". For Container Cloud, that looks a lot like Fedora+OpenShiftOrigin, rather than just Atomic Host. The idea being that we want to present something which users can use to deploy containerized Fedora applications immediately, rather than something they can build a container cloud out of. So the idea will to be to create a "run it out of the box" experience. > 5. Submit the general idea to the Council for approval to change Editions (I don't anticipate this being more than a rubber stamp, but we should definitely get that stamp.) >>> When you do this, can you make sure to elaborate on why moving to >>> Atomic+Openshift Origin is good for Fedora, what benefits it brings, >>> and where that leaves other Fedora efforts around Cloud (and even >>> Atomic Host)? While that might all be self-evident to the Cloud WG >>> members, it won't be to the entire Council and most definitely will >>> not be to the greater Fedora ecosystem. >> >> Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora >> Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate >> to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or >> the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech). > > Have we formally redefined it as such? I feel like either I've been > asleep and missed a lot (I don't think so?), people are having > discussions around these things in places that are harder to follow, > or people are making assumptions. > >> It might be a good idea to have a new mailing list for the new edition >> WG, and keep this one focused on Cloud SIG stuff across all Editions. >> >> As for Atomic... Atomic Host is a building block for the new thing, and >> I think we'd continue to make that block available on its own to those >> who want that, but not necessarily promote it. > > Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a > foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well. Which > is where some of my surprise comes from I guess. I thought we'd > finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a > fundamentals level. That's still possible I guess. Yeah, so Atomic Host will still remain available as an "alternate download". Among other things, it has users. But you'll need to click on a "more downloads" button to find it. 6. Submit any (probably several) Change requests to FESCo for required technical changes, and work with Design, Rel-Eng, QA, and etc. on those. >>> I'm curious to see what those might be. >> >> Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on >> whatever we promote as an installer/configurator. > > I don't see a need for a new logo. It's throwing out the well done > and now somewhat familiar branding work we've built up. However, > people like new pretty things so whatever. > >> Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la >> current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something >> else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host >> continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different >> cluster roles; I dunno. > > I kind of think you want to stop calling them releases to be honest. > They aren't releases in the grand Fedora sense of the word. They're > bundled and focused updates (service packs?) of content within the > grand Fedora release cycle. > > I don't believe you'll get to actual true separate releases for > Editions until modularity enables such a thing. > >> We'll also need a m
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 02:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > To me it is. As I said originally, something that might be > self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the > IRC meetings, etc. It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing > X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y > instead." Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y > were bad or negative. Just surprising. To be clear I don't see this as an "instead", but more of "in addition". I think OpenShift is a *lot* more pretty face to be presenting by default than just raw Kubernetes, and in addition we need to drive the integration story between S2I and Fedora/RPM packaging. Currently a major disconnect with Atomic Host is that Kubernetes is included, whereas many many people want to control the version, or use OpenShift. So we're looking at addressing this by dropping Kube out of the host by default, and supporting installation via system containers (`atomic install --system`) or package layering. > Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a > foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well. Which > is where some of my surprise comes from I guess. I thought we'd > finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a > fundamentals level. That's still possible I guess. Given the above then, WorkstationOstree is still entirely possible and makes sense. I'm in fact running builds of it right now =) The only crosscutting thing here was - does it make sense to ship the Workstation as Docker images instead, and use Atomic Host? I don't think that's quite technically feasible yet, though with the system containers work we're potentially closer. That's a big discussion. ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
> > We've decided that, like Workstation, we want to focus on deliverable, > complete OS environments for users instead of "parts". For Container > Cloud, that looks a lot like Fedora+OpenShiftOrigin, rather than just > Atomic Host. > I feel like I've not been out of the loop (aside from the recent FAD) but this comes as a bit of a surprise to me. To be clear I don't see this as an "instead", but more of "in addition". > > I think OpenShift is a *lot* more pretty face to be presenting by default > than > just raw Kubernetes, and in addition we need to drive the integration > story between S2I and Fedora/RPM packaging. This is a lot less scary, since I don't think moving the whole SIG to focus on a Fedora based delivery of Origin is all that interesting. I definitely agree that Origin is prettier than the current state, but that we should be looking to improve that state. It seems like "PaaS is the answer" comes from the existence of a PaaS, not from what users might want from an Atomic Host Cluster. S2I is great, but not the only way to build containers, and definitely drives the Fedora container story in an opinionated direction that also impacts people running Atomic Host Clusters (must have a registry and K8S implementation that understands the ImageStream extension) away from "general" use cases for K8S and Docker. I love Origin, but I just don't see it as the "right" answer for "I need a better way to manage a Docker/Rocket/Kubernetes cluster". I absolutely think that Atomic Host as the execution environment for Origin is The Right Thing (TM) and we should be working together there. I think there's missing cluster management in both projects right now, but Cockpit and Commissaire are making big strides in that arena. I can also see the potential argument that Atomic Host on it's own wasn't compelling enough for a full Edition. So, I hope if we do move toward an Atomic+Origin as primary deliverable, we don't lose focus on Atomic Host Clusters, since one can make the argument that while related there's two separate use cases. my knee-jerk $0.02 - Matt M On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 02:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > To me it is. As I said originally, something that might be > > self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the > > IRC meetings, etc. It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing > > X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y > > instead." Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y > > were bad or negative. Just surprising. > > To be clear I don't see this as an "instead", but more of "in addition". > > I think OpenShift is a *lot* more pretty face to be presenting by default > than > just raw Kubernetes, and in addition we need to drive the integration > story between S2I and Fedora/RPM packaging. > > Currently a major disconnect with Atomic Host is that Kubernetes > is included, whereas many many people want to control the > version, or use OpenShift. > > So we're looking at addressing this by dropping Kube out of the host > by default, and supporting installation via system containers (`atomic > install --system`) > or package layering. > > > Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a > > foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well. Which > > is where some of my surprise comes from I guess. I thought we'd > > finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a > > fundamentals level. That's still possible I guess. > > Given the above then, WorkstationOstree is still entirely possible > and makes sense. I'm in fact running builds of it right now =) > > The only crosscutting thing here was - does it make sense to > ship the Workstation as Docker images instead, and use Atomic Host? > I don't think that's quite technically feasible yet, though with the > system containers work we're potentially closer. That's a big > discussion. > > ___ > 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: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:09:51PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Thanks — that's good feedback. One possibility — especially as Fedora > > Server does its own rethink — is for the Fedora Cloud Base to migrate > > to Fedora Server WG. Another would be for it to continue as a Spin (or > > the analog of that, now that we've redefined Spins to be desktop tech). > Have we formally redefined it as such? I feel like either I've been > asleep and missed a lot (I don't think so?), people are having > discussions around these things in places that are harder to follow, > or people are making assumptions. I'm not sure about formality, but it's effectively so due to the new website design, which has https://spins.fedoraproject.org/ "Alternative desktops for Fedora" and https://labs.fedoraproject.org/ "Functional bundles for Fedora" > Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a > foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well. Which > is where some of my surprise comes from I guess. I thought we'd > finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a > fundamentals level. That's still possible I guess. Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily in confict. It basically ends up being two separate Editions built on Atomic technology. > > Design: Website refresh for sure. New logo. Possibly some UX work on > > whatever we promote as an installer/configurator. > I don't see a need for a new logo. It's throwing out the well done > and now somewhat familiar branding work we've built up. However, > people like new pretty things so whatever. Fortunately the https://getfedora.org/static/images/cloud-logo.png logo *does* work well for "container cluster" as well. It was designed with the idea of scale-out computing. > > Re-Eng: We'll have to decide if we want to do two-week releases a la > > current Atomic, or tie to the normal six-month schedule, or something > > else. (Maybe three-month releases while the two-week Atomic Host > > continues underneath?) Plus, possible multiple images for different > > cluster roles; I dunno. > I kind of think you want to stop calling them releases to be honest. > They aren't releases in the grand Fedora sense of the word. They're > bundled and focused updates (service packs?) of content within the > grand Fedora release cycle. Sure, I'm open to another term. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:04:08PM -0400, Matt Micene wrote: > I can also see the potential argument that Atomic Host on it's own wasn't > compelling enough for a full Edition. So, I hope if we do move toward an > Atomic+Origin as primary deliverable, we don't lose focus on Atomic Host > Clusters, since one can make the argument that while related there's two > separate use cases. Can you spell out those two use cases? I'd find that really helpful. Do you think one could be served by a subset of the other, or is it really two separate deliverables? > my knee-jerk $0.02 Very welcome — thanks. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: > 3. Pick a name! I know, it's bikeshed painting to some degree, but it >really is actually important. Possibilities include: > >- Fedora Container Cluster Edition >- Fedora OpenShift Edition >- Fedora Atomic Cluster Edition >- Fedora Some New Entire Name We Create Edition > >and all have their plusses and minuses. As someone who mainly just reads mailing lists and announcements to try and keep straight in his head what's going on, I would suggest *not* just having yet another "X Atomic Y" name. Bill ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Jun 15, 2016 5:58 PM, "Matthew Miller" wrote: > > Can you spell out those two use cases? I'd find that really helpful. Do > you think one could be served by a subset of the other, or is it really > two separate deliverables? I see folks looking at PaaS and a "cluster to run containers" as separate but related use cases. PaaS folks are looking for the full developer experience, cluster abstraction from the user, and aren't as interested in running arbitrary containers or pods. They are generally looking for a way to improve dev cycles. The container cluster folks want a way to effectively manage containers and pods from anywhere, including self developed and ISV or project related. They want a better set of tools that don't completely eliminate the cluster view. They may use different tools to build images like Ansible or Chef. I do think that the PaaS is a superset, the cluster manager tooling could be super helpful for operational underpinning of PaaS. A lot of those tools are CLI or missing in Origin today. Like how do I manage nodes to understand when to add more and "rerun ansible playbook" isn't necessarily the best cluster management experience. Not sure if that's clearer or if I just repeated myself. But I can see an easy line between cluster operations and developer interfaces. - Matt M ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 05:04 PM, Matt Micene wrote: >> > This is a lot less scary, since I don't think moving the whole SIG to > focus on a Fedora based delivery of Origin is all that interesting. I > definitely agree that Origin is prettier than the current state, but > that we should be looking to improve that state. It seems like "PaaS > is the answer" comes from the existence of a PaaS, not from what users > might want from an Atomic Host Cluster. S2I is great, but not the > only way to build containers, and definitely drives the Fedora > container story in an opinionated direction that also impacts people > running Atomic Host Clusters (must have a registry and K8S > implementation that understands the ImageStream extension) away from > "general" use cases for K8S and Docker. What I was saying by "in addition" was that we would at least remain on the baseline we have today for "raw Kubernetes", and ideally improve that as well. Some things will continue to flow from Origin -> Kube as well. ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
