OpenStack Folsom feature for F18 & questions

[Pádraig Brady]

On 06/19/2012 01:35 PM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> With my lovely Program Manager hat on, I sent this over to FESCo for
> approval in next week's meeting:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_Folsom
> 
> That said, a few questions:
> 
> * Are there any significant new features / inclusions planned for this
> release? It's hard to tell from the feature page - I sent it on
> through to FESCo (with my PM hat on) because technically it's a
> complete page (I'm willing ot let the release notes section be empty
> for a bit since I know they'll come along from upstream) - but with
> my, uh, Marketing Team hat on (I should really have a closet just for
> hats) there's not much I can say other than "newer stuff, probably
> with bugfixes."

Well I did consider the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions
and in discussion with others thought the feature page was worthwhile,
to publicise that the update was happening in Fedora 18.
While no significant new components are planned for Folsom,
the package set is significant in and of itself.

> I know there's been some work around novnc and some
> various python-y things - are those worth mentioning at all in the
> feature page?

They're also being added to the essex release in F17

> * I noticed in the latest status report that swift wasn't among the
> packages updated to Folsom - are we not expecting any changes there?

They came just after the status report.
I had held it up long enough, so released it in the knowledge
that I could updated (which I've now done for the quantum and swift updates).

> * I know that Matt Domsch has raised the question of ongoing support
> for older releases and the intersection with EPEL on the mailing list,
> with no answer -
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/2012-May/001494.html -
> is it possible we could move this topic forward, mostly right now WRT
> openstack, but also keeping in mind that there are other IaaS-y things
> on the horizon for Fedora and a more broad policy might be useful?

We're looking into this. I'll try and respond with something concrete.

> * There are a few bulletpoints in the feature page in the scope
> section listed as possiblys - including postgresql support, yum
> groupinstall, upgrades from essex - I'm not clear on if those are just
> random ideas, or decisions made upstream in openstack land, but I
> haven't really seen any discussion on these (I'm also known to miss a
> lot of things, so take that with a grain of salt).
> 
> But I know there are plenty of folks who have commit/approve/owner
> access to openstack packages and I do wonder what their thoughts are
> (mostly wrt upgrades from essex and groupinstall), since the feature
> page wasn't really advertised before it got submitted (and I say that
> with my nicest "meritocracy means those doing the work get to make
> decisions" hat on, but if people don't know the work is being
> planned....). Can you clarify what the plans/ideas/decision points are
> for those bulletpoints going forward? :D

Well these points were in the general area of better Fedora integration.
 I.E. upgrade support and PostreSQL support etc.
Some may need some work upstream, but it's mostly distro work and testing.

These points were meant to illicit discussion, so thanks for doing that :)
As you mention above re the release notes, the feature page is not
set in stone and can be updated (that was my assumption anyway).

I guess the info was buried under 2 levels of links posted to the list,
sorry about that.

cheers,
Pádraig.