[DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at 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 [1].

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
> editions confusing?

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 conversation,
> 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.

josh