basic plan for two-week atomic images

Adam Miller maxamillion at fedoraproject.org
Wed Jun 17 19:53:49 UTC 2015


On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Adam Miller
<maxamillion at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Michael P. McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Matthew Miller" <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
>>> To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" <cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 10:17:31 AM
>>> Subject: Re: basic plan for two-week atomic images
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:37:18AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>>> > >> > 2. Images built from those nightly (I think right now only rawhide?)
>>> > >> once f22 is final only rawhide.
>>> > > What would it take to make those happen post-release?
>>> > If we could get a clearly defined list of what these items are I would
>>> > be happy to work towards getting them done. I just don't know how that
>>>
>>> Going back to this old thread. :) What's the list you need here? I
>>> assume it's:
>>>
>>> - downloadable Atomic qcow2 (and raw.xz)
>>> - Same image uploaded to EC2 (and hopefully others)
>>> - installer ISO?
>>>
>>
>> At this point I would settle for anything I could put here:
>>
>> http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/fedora-atomic/images/testing/
>>
>> and blog about.
>
> To satisfy this in the near term as we sort out a more appropriate
> long term solution, we now have F22 + Upddates nightly ISO builds[0]
> as well as re-enabled vagrant and qcow builds[1].
>
> For anyone interested in the "secret sauce" here:
>
> - the ISOs are built in a mock chroot with this script:
> https://github.com/maxamillion/fedora-atomic-nightly/blob/master/build-atomic.sh

Wanted to post this for posterity, I renamed the script and added some
info to the README:
https://github.com/maxamillion/fedora-atomic-nightly

-AdamM

>
> - vagrant/qcow images were re-enabled in the releng script here:
> https://pagure.io/releng/blob/master/f/scripts/build-cloud-images
>
> Once we have pungi4 in shape and/or the run-root koji plugin live in
> production, we will likely be able to move these sort of tasks into a
> more well defined process better suited for the long term but my hope
> is that we'll no longer block the projectatomic team.
>
> -AdamM
>
> [0] - http://atomic-nightly.cloud.fedoraproject.org/composes
> [1] - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?start=0&state=all&view=tree&method=image&order=-id
>
>>
>>>
>>> > >> > 3. Images go through automated tests, automatically (tunir; not fully
>>> > >> >    automatic yet, right?)
>>> > >> there is zero automated testing available, but we really need it, afaik
>>> > >> it is
>>> > >> all manual
>>> > > See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/tunir>. Plus glorious
>>> > > Taskotron future, I'm sure. :)
>>> > I'm not sure where in the phases this should fit, it seems like a
>>> > giant forklift of work to me given that the base Fedora distro that
>>> > Atomic is going to be pulling it's bits from doesn't even have this
>>> > functionality. Am I mistaken or possibly missing something? (Please
>>> > correct me if I am)
>>>
>>> I think initially, this will be basic smoketests. Currently, I believe
>>> those are https://github.com/kushaldas/tunirtests — Kushal, can you
>>> correct me if I'm wrong. So, we don't need to forklift the whole
>>> thing... just get these running automatically.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >> We need people to test, and a process to move things through stages.
>>> > >> build all the images, etc. a location to put things, i,e lots of
>>> > >> things
>>> > This largely piggy backs off my previous point. Automatic "graduation"
>>> > will require a decent amount of work and probably commitment from the
>>> > QA group. I won't speak to their capacity to cater to this but I think
>>> > what is ultimately being asked of them should be brought to their
>>> > attention as early as possible to get their input.
>>>
>>> I don't think we can ask a lot more of the QA group — we may need more,
>>> new bodies.
>>>
>>>
>>> > > Let's work at building the full list of lots of things. If we want to
>>> > > have people testing, I'd say that'd go something like:
>>> > >   - every two weeks, latest image to pass is flagged as needing human
>>> > >     testing, a la a package update in bodhi
>>> > >   - some sort of karma system — maybe it _is_ bodhi, but don't want to
>>> > >     block on that
>>> > If it were to be Bodhi, would the Atomic tree (or image) then be just
>>> > another build artifact pushed through and sync'd like an rpm? So for
>>> > at least the near term, it would require human intervention of
>>> > submitting an update?
>>>
>>> Yeah. Although maybe that update could be summitted by a bot of some
>>> sort? Presumably the same bot running Tunir. This would have the logic
>>> for "two weeks mark has passed; find the latest image to pass tests
>>> with this period, submit as update (or raise alarm if nothing has
>>> succeeded)".
>>>
>>> > > Atomic devs have expressed a strong worry about the lack of
>>> > > something like this, unless I'm misunderstanding. Possibly an
>>> > > alternate image including updates-testing would suffice (or, maybe,
>>> > > is actually separately necessary, since atomic doesn't let
>>> > > individual testers just pull in individual RPMs to test).
>>> > If I remember correctly, there are also concerns about things ending
>>> > up in Atomic trees that actually never see the light of day in Fedora
>>> > because they might never make it to stable. What's the policy on that
>>> > sort of thing? (Or is there one? I suspect this could be uncharted
>>> > territory because Atomic is effectively a new Operating System product
>>> > with it's own lifecycle aiming to operate within the Fedora umbrella)
>>>
>>> It's a little bit uncharted territory if we're using F22 as a base
>>> rather than Rawhide. For Rawhide, it's happened before (and
>>> theoretically should be SOP for a Change proposal which doesn't work
>>> out). But even with F22 base, as long as name-epoch-version-release
>>> marches forward, and the packages which are subject to such churn are
>>> clearly described as volatile, I don't see a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> > I suspect that if/when the testing automation is in place the double
>>> > gate wouldn't be needed, especially if this is just considered a
>>> > development release. But I think that's where part of the problem lies
>>> > is that the Atomic dev teams wants to use a stable OS as something
>>> > that is re-rev'd with components updated and replaced but still call
>>> > it "Fedora $VERSION" when in fact, it is not the same as what others
>>> > will get from Fedora $VERSION unless they install from either the
>>> > Atomic image or this dev tree. (depending on what the decisions are
>>> > there)
>>>
>>> I think mostly the components that will get updated and replaced are
>>> under the general Atomic umbrella, right? (Kubernetes, Atomic,
>>> Docker...) Do we have concrete examples of things outside of that? I
>>> know there was a theoretical example of systemd, but maybe that can be
>>> coordinated with a mainline update. And the kernel is on an aggressive
>>> update schedule anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Kubernetes might be removed from the list soon if we can containerize it,
>> there's extra work to do so but that might simplify the atomic builds a bit.
>>
>>    -Mike
>>
>>> My suggestion, at least, is to try this approach with an eye towards
>>> building the thing you talk about in this next paragraph for post-F23,
>>> if it turns out to be necessary.
>>>
>>> > Basically this again. If anything I think if Fedora Atomic wants to be
>>> > it's own product then it should exist slightly differently such that
>>> > it has it's own set of koji tags, inherits from $current, but
>>> > subplants the components it needs. This would however be a massive
>>> > shift because as it turns out that is something that's never been done
>>> > before and I think this would require a whole new Bodhi stream since
>>> > it's effectively a new product//release. If it's not Rawhide but it's
>>> > not Fedora $current, then It's basically it's own Distro that's just
>>> > based on Fedora and if it were to exist within the Fedora umbrella
>>> > then I think there need to be policy changes and that's going to be a
>>> > giant pile of other work to sort out how that's all going to fit.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthew Miller
>>> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
>>> Fedora Project Leader
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cloud mailing list
>>> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cloud mailing list
>> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct


More information about the cloud mailing list