On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 10/28/2015 03:03 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Could you provide a bit more context without necessarily offering your
> suggestions? It's somewhat hard to discuss this without it going
> everywhere without some kind of background into the overlaps or
> disparities that you see.
I can try to give some context, and yes we probably need some scope. To
be clear, this isn't so much disparities/overlaps that *I* see - I just
took the AI to start the discussion.
Cloud ticket 127 from roshi opened the discussion about the server WG
wanting "to do some coordination with workstation and cloud" and asked
for brainstorming. And then discussion followed which I won't try to
summarize because I may not do it justice, so please see .
Read, thanks for the pointer.
Some useful questions, though:
- Does the current set of editions make sense, as produced by the Cloud
and Server WG?
Well, confusing on "what is the Cloud base image for" aside, I think
the editions as produced make sense.
- Is the distinction between Cloud and Server wrong?
There's a lot of history here - the Cloud group really started as a
place to look at packaging OpenStack, OpenShift, Eucalyptus, CloudStack
for Fedora. Then it evolved into cloud images and then a focus on Atomic.
IMO, no it isn't wrong.
- Should we have a "server" image in the cloud? Is the
current suite of
I don't think it's confusing, but I also don't think having a server
image in the cloud is a bad idea.
And most importantly - what started the initial initial
how should the Cloud & Server folks work together next release?
Given that I only have tangential interest in either WG, this
suggestion might not make sense. However, I see Server and Cloud as
two separate but complimentary things. The *could* be the same thing,
except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single
offering we had for some kind of C&S WG I would cry. I hate it
because it is ridiculous to use in a non-cloud environment, and Server
very much has that as part of it's reach.
So assuming we don't have one image for both, I think they can still
work together more closely. I like the idea in the ticket of having a
cloudtoserver script. I also like the idea of a server to cloud
script that could convert a Server install into a Cloud image. If we
were to take into account that an admin might want to provision a
Server in a VM or on a bare metal machine and then say "take this and
make it a cloud image" with said script, that might work well too.
The Server image is easier for a human to use by far, and cloudify-ing
a Server install into a deployable cloud image might result in a
larger cloud image but some people won't care.
Anyway, the gist of my ramblings is that I think the two groups could
compliment each other better but I still view them as separate
Editions with separate (but possibly overlapping) audiences. My
ramblings my be wrong, but they make sense in my head.