-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/18/2014 05:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 18 June 2014 15:23, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com
<mailto:awilliam@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 20:01 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 17 June 2014 18:35, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com
<mailto:awilliam@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:48 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> On 17 June 2014 16:02, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com
<mailto:awilliam@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've revised the release criteria draft again, with
reference to the
>>>> useful discussions both on-list and at this morning's
>>>> meeting:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_server_release_criteria
>>>
>>>> I added the firewall exception for the Cockpit web
interface, clarified
>>>> the issue about role deployment "at install time", and
>>>> added new criteria for the cockpit management interface to
>>>> be running
OOTB and
>> for
>>>> roles to meet their "functional requirements, as defined
>>>> in
their role
>>>> specification documents" - role specification documents
being something
>>>> I invented out of my ass at the meeting this morning. View
that one as
>> a
>>>> trial balloon. :)
>>>>
>>>> As always, thoughts / comments welcome!
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. First of all, where could I 'test' any of these things
>>> on
a Fedora 20
>>> system.
>>
>> Well, that would be pointless. We're building a new product,
>> called Fedora Server. That's kind of the whole point. We
>> already have
release
>> criteria that are more or less scope-appropriate for the
>> product
called
>> "Fedora 20" - they're the Fedora 20 Release Criteria, which we
used to
>> validate the Fedora 20 release.
>>
>>
> That is not what I meant. I am sorry I am not communicating well
and not
> being helpful here. I have seen the links and such but they are
> in the words on a white board. There are ~60 days before the
> alpha+2
weeks and I
> wanted to see what code was written and possibly set it up
> against
Fed 20
> (as Fedora 21/Rawhide may not be the best to test against as its
changing)
> so I could see if the draft looked spot on or if it was too
> little
or too
> much. That was all.
>
> Again my apologies
Sorry for sounding harsh, I was just a bit frustrated. So, let me
try again: if you have concerns about our ability to implement the
Server tech specs within the current F21 timeframe, well, that's a
thing. The Server WG actually has similar concerns, which is why it
asked FESCo for a schedule modification recently, but that's not
exactly how it came out.
My concerns in relationship to your document was if
Role deployment Role service query Role firewall configuration Role
functional requirements
were overly or underly ambitious for what could be met. I did not
communicate that well and I can understand the frustration as
negative nancies steal the life out of everything.
I'd say we're a little on the ambitious side, sure. That having been
said, we've got a fairly solid design plan readied, I think. I'm going
to send out a link to my proposed Role implementation shortly as well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlOi8QgACgkQeiVVYja6o6N1PwCgga3Tmnhu16etRIMiDo7o+eo7
rMEAniHPzp2gEDon3MnWaIk7M2xGBowb
=x0CY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----