changes list for fesco (Cloud WG members -- action needed!)
Sandro "red" Mathys
red at fedoraproject.org
Sun Mar 2 23:05:19 UTC 2014
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone. Joe and I did a lot of work on the cloud changelist, starting
> from the brainstorming list that Sandro put into place. Please take a look
> at <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist>.
> The next steps are:
> 1. Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be
> nice to fill that in, although we can leave some of them TBD if need be.
So, what does being an owner constitute? Pulling strings or doing all
the hard work? I'd be interested in doing one or two, but e.g. the
Docker host image still needs SELinux changes, AFAIK and while I could
write some policy that would work I'm sure someone else could write
one that would work and was as secure as possible... ;)
> 2. Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here
> if it looks like something is missing.
Looks good to me but with such a big thing as Fedora.next, it's hard
to tell whether something was missed until we notice it the hard way.
Maybe, since the F21 cycle is longer anyway, we should request that
the involved WGs are allowed to propose changes after the normal
change deadline if it must.
> 3. There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we have
> it about right.
Wondering a bit about one tailored image (Docker) being set to
'moderate' and all the others to 'nice-to-have' but figure that's
because we don't like losing even more to CoreOS than we already have
(not sure whether having a Docker Host image is enough for that,
though...the guys at CoreOS are seriously doing great work).
Otherwise, looks fair enough.
> 4. Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling
> fixes and the like. If it seems big, mention it here, or otherwise just
> do it.
Nothing to complain this time ;) Except some changes don't have the
"Cloud SIG owner. ???????" line which is easily added - or is that by
> 5. I propose that we accept this list by lazy consensus -- that is, if we
> don't get any -1s from WG members by 23:00 UTC on Monday, we'll consider
> it accepted. I don't think there is anything controversial in here.
+1 to both the list and the lazy consensus.
More information about the cloud