Re: Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 25 August 2016 at 13:34, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> >
> > We've talked about this for a while, but let's make it formal. The plan
> > is to transition from Cloud as a Fedora Edition to Something Container
> > Clustery (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/ProjectFAO).
> >
> > But, we still need cloud as a _deploy target_. The FAO-container-thing
> > will continue to have cloud image deploy targets (as well as bare
> > metal). I think it makes sense to _also_ have Fedora Server as a cloud
> > deploy target.
> >
>
>  Could we make sure that whatever targets we have are actually getting
>  tested? The fact that autocloud has said it was broken for months but
>  the cloud sig wasn't looking or fixing says that before we get to step
>  2, we need to say 'is anyone more than 2 people really interested?' It
>  should be ok to say 'no we aren't.' without people diving into the
>  fire trying to rescue something that unless it was on fire they
>  wouldn't have helped. 
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.


-- 
Chris Murphy

Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Matthew Miller]

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
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Adam Williamson]

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.

Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Colin Walters]

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.

Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Adam Williamson]

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.

Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Adam Miller]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  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. 
I think this was brought up during a Cloud WG meeting as a side affect
of that ping and it just never went anywhere.

-AdamM

> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:03:21PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>  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. 
As I understand it, AutoCloud creates these issues:
https://pagure.io/atomic-images/issues

We should probably subscribe one or both of those lists to those
tickets.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

Proposal: for F26, move Cloud Base Image to Server WG

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 26 August 2016 at 16:45, Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 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 <period> 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.