server November 2017

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
15 discussions

Name of the next Fedora Server release
by Andrea Bolognani 08 Nov '17

08 Nov '17

Hi there! According to Langdon this topic has not really been discussed properly yet, so I'd like to bring it up now. I know it's kinda late, but hopefully not quite *too* late :) Long story short, I'm not sure releasing the output of the Modularity effort as Fedora Server, which seems to be the current plan, is necessarily the best idea. The Fedora Server moniker has been used for a pretty long while now, and in that time users have come to expect certain things from it. Modularity causes some of those expectations not to be met in its current form. Quick example: # dnf install screen No match for argument: screen Error: Unable to find a match For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software", installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner, but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated. At the same time, calling the output of the Modularity effort Fedora Server doesn't do much to highlight just how much of a reimagining of the traditional server OS it is. Based on the above, my proposal is to drop the Fedora Server moniker entirely and release as Fedora Modular Server instead. The advantage of doing so is that using a different name signals a clear break from previous Fedora Server releases: it's a new product, one that you shouldn't expect to be a drop-in replacement. It's also a name that you haven't heard before, which might pique your interest even if you haven't been using Fedora up until now. I think it would have a positive outcome on the way this release is received. Moreover, the repositories themselves are already named like that! So it would be just[1] a matter of doubling down on that name and making sure it's being used consistently everywhere. Looking forward to your feedback :) [1] Note that I have no idea how much actual work that would entail -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization

8 15

Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2017-11-07)
by Stephen Gallagher 07 Nov '17

07 Nov '17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 ================================================================ #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2017-11-07) ================================================================ Meeting started by sgallagh at 21:01:01 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-11-07/serversig.2… . Meeting summary - --------------- * Roll Call (sgallagh, 21:01:01) * Agenda (sgallagh, 21:06:01) * Agenda Item: What do we do for upgrades? (sgallagh, 21:06:22) * Agenda Item: Name of the Edition (sgallagh, 21:06:26) * Agenda Item: Final Release Criteria for modularity (sgallagh, 21:06:29) * Agenda Item: Testing requested on Beta RC (sgallagh, 21:06:34) * Agenda Item: Beta Blockers (sgallagh, 21:07:54) * What do we do for upgrades? (sgallagh, 21:08:05) * LINK: https://fedoramagazine.org/where-is-fedora-server-27-beta/ (langdon, 21:13:23) * AGREED: Upgrade bugs from Fedora 26 Server Edition to Fedora 27 do not block the release of either F27 or F27 Modular. We will address (attempt to fix, at least document) issues with dnf upgrade from Fedora 26 Server to Fedora 27 non-modular packages on a best-effort basis. We currently intend to provide a recommended upgrade path from Fedora 26 Server to Fedora 28 at the time of Fedora 28 release. (sgallagh, 21:42:27) * Name of the Edition (sgallagh, 21:42:42) * AGREED: Call it "Fedora Modular Server" to avoid end-user confusion as requested by multiple parties. (sgallagh, 21:56:20) * Testing requested on Beta RC (sgallagh, 21:58:29) * AGREED: BZ 1510629 is a blocker for F27 Modular Server Beta (sgallagh, 22:04:12) * Final Release Criteria for modularity (sgallagh, 22:04:55) * We will postpone this discussion to next week after QA feedback is incorporated. (sgallagh, 22:07:23) * Open Floor (sgallagh, 22:07:27) * We have an RC! (sgallagh, 22:08:18) * LINK: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/27/Fedora-Modular-27-20171107.1/… (sgallagh, 22:09:27) Meeting ended at 22:11:24 UTC. Action Items - ------------ Action Items, by person - ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) - --------------------------- * sgallagh (107) * adamw (52) * langdon (51) * nirik (26) * smooge (16) * zodbot (12) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v2.0.0 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wkYEAREIABAFAloCL8UJEHolVWI2uqOjAACiSACcDsjqSRf8MEjaXGLN2TLm h96vkMIAnRXmKJ47E0Q+fP6C7gyNMu+/TAPV =soFm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Agenda for Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2017-11-07)
by Stephen Gallagher 07 Nov '17

07 Nov '17

We have the following items that need discussion at the meeting today: * Whether we should reconsider calling the release Fedora Server or Fedora Modular Server. [1] * Review the proposed Final Release Criteria for modularity [2] * Testing requested for the recent nightly composes (hoping to spin RC today or tomorrow) [3] [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.or… [2] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames%2FDraft%3AFedora_2… [3] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/latest-Fedora-Modular-27/compose…

1 0

Re: Product requirements for Modularity server.
by Adam Williamson 06 Nov '17

06 Nov '17

On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 11:00 -0400, James Antill wrote: > Hey, so we put this together for test requirements for Modularity > server: > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames%2FDraft%3AFedo > ra_27_Final_Release_Criteria%2Bmodularity&diff=501506&oldid=501503 Thanks for that! I'm not sure I like the preamble. For a start, the criteria are not "instructions" for testing. Beyond that, I'm not sure it serves any function; we don't need to specifically state that the criteria really do apply to this or that. What's the purpose of the preamble, to you? The meat of the requirements seems fine, but I'd probably choose to represent them a bit differently. The requirement isn't really about 'modular data' in the repositories, that's kind of an implementation detail. The requirement is for the installer and the installed system to be able to manipulate modules, right? So, I'd want to follow the pattern established by existing requirements related to *packages* in that area. For instance, we have a Beta criterion: "Package set selection When installing with the generic network install image, interactively selecting a package set other than the default must work." So, wouldn't it make sense to add another criterion directly below it: "Module selection When installing with a release-blocking [https://docs.pagure.org/modula rity/ Modularity]-enabled image, changing the default module selection must work." or something like that? (It'd be nice to be more precise about exactly what we expect from the installer, but I can't be more precise because I don't know yet :>) Similarly, for the installed system, I'd probably want to add a new criterion to "Post-install requirements" at Beta or Final rather than have this new section. It's an interesting point that we don't actually require package installation or removal to work in the criteria; this is intentional, though arguable. We only require package *update* to work in the criteria, the logic being that if package install or removal is broken we can ship an update to fix it. I'm not sure I'm still married to that position, though. :) So we might want to extend the criteria to require that basic package installation and removal with the official tools works, and add a corresponding criterion for module interactions directly beneath it. WDYT? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

2 1

2017-11-06 @ ** 17:00 ** UTC - Fedora 27 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 04 Nov '17

04 Nov '17

# F27 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-11-06 # Time: ** 17:00 ** UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We currently have only one proposed freeze exception for Fedora 27. However, in case more blockers show up over the weekend, I'm scheduling a review meeting for Monday; if there aren't any, I'll just run a very quick meeting where we don't do anything. Note that daylight savings time ends in most of North America this weekend, so we'll be changing the meeting time to 17:00 UTC. If daylight savings ends (clocks go back) for you this weekend, the meeting should be at the same local time as always. If you don't observe daylight savings or it ends at a different time, the meeting will be one hour later in your local time than it was last week. If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F27 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Note that for the special case of the Server release being split from the main release stream for Fedora 27, we have created separate Server blocker tracking bugs and will be following the same basic process for the Server release dates using those trackers. Have a good weekend and see you on Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server November 2017