Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)
mmaslano at redhat.com
Tue Nov 19 17:46:29 UTC 2013
#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-11-19)
Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:04:20 UTC. The full logs are available
* init process (mmaslano, 16:07:42)
* ACTION: pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki
pages (mmaslano, 16:11:59)
* use urls like http://fp.o/wiki/Environment and Stacks/* (mmaslano,
* and categories should use [[Category: Environment and Stacks]]
* put a link to our homepage to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next (mmaslano, 16:17:44)
* PRD (mmaslano, 16:19:29)
* LINK: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR (abadger1999, 17:04:53)
* ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to
enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to
the mailing list this week (abadger1999, 17:37:44)
Meeting ended at 17:43:04 UTC.
* pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages
* everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one
specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list
Action Items, by person
* pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages
* pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages
* everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and
one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing
list this week
People Present (lines said)
* abadger1999 (101)
* mmaslano (70)
* tjanez (27)
* samkottler (17)
* drieden (14)
* pkovar (11)
* hhorak (9)
* zodbot (4)
* sochotni (2)
* nirik (1)
* bkabrda (0)
* juhp (0)
* handsome_pirate (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
16:04:20 <mmaslano> #startmeeting Env and Stacks (2013-11-19)
16:04:20 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 19 16:04:20 2013 UTC. The
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at
16:04:20 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea
16:04:27 <mmaslano> #meetingname env and stacks
16:04:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks'
16:05:37 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda
handsome_pirate hhorak juhp
16:05:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate
hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez
16:06:06 <mmaslano> how many people is here?
16:06:14 <hhorak> Hi, I am
16:06:24 <tjanez> hi
16:06:24 <drieden> Hello
16:06:24 * pkovar is here
16:06:27 * sochotni
16:07:36 <mmaslano> ok, we have some members here
16:07:42 <mmaslano> #topic init process
16:08:01 <mmaslano> let's go through old stuff first
16:08:27 <mmaslano> I admit I forgot to create trac request, I opened a
ticket now https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4124
16:08:34 <mmaslano> what about wiki pages?
16:09:15 <pkovar> keep them where they are?
16:09:34 <pkovar> i think that other WG are also using fedora wiki, no?
16:10:03 <mmaslano> someone had to create them
16:10:06 <tjanez> I believe handsome_pirate said he'll setup our Wiki page
16:10:14 <tjanez> on Fedora wiki, of course
16:10:32 <mmaslano> I understand he will put content about WG on one place
16:10:33 <pkovar> good, i can help with that
16:10:53 <mmaslano> pkovar: do you want to poke him what's the status or
if we have any problem?
16:11:09 * abadger1999 here
16:11:13 <pkovar> sure, will try to hunt him down :-)
16:11:42 <drieden> is handsome_pirate in Westford? If so, want me to
follow up with him?
16:11:43 * abadger1999 nots that "space on the wiki" should just be
16:11:59 <mmaslano> #action pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content
of WG wiki pages
16:12:15 <mmaslano> drieden: I do not know, where is he located
16:12:17 <abadger1999> with mediawiki, convention is usually like
[[Category: Environment and Stacks]]
16:12:50 <abadger1999> but in Fedora, we like using urls like
http://fp.o/wiki/Environment and Stacks/*
16:13:15 <mmaslano> #info use urls like http://fp.o/wiki/Environment
16:13:28 <abadger1999> mmaslano: We should also use categories.
16:13:44 <abadger1999> as categories have support in mediawiki (like the
listing of all pages in the categories)
16:13:52 <mmaslano> #info and categories should use [[Category:
Environment and Stacks]]
16:13:59 <mmaslano> abadger1999: feel free to mark it by yourself
16:14:12 <hhorak> maybe put a link to our homepage to
16:17:44 <mmaslano> #info put a link to our homepage to
16:17:49 <mmaslano> more comments to wiki?
16:19:21 <mmaslano> I understand no
16:19:29 <mmaslano> #topic PRD
16:19:41 <mmaslano> let's move what we want to do or should do in our group
16:20:07 <mmaslano> I asked nirik about Formulas - it's sort of dead
project, so we can move to next topics :)
16:20:42 <mmaslano> he promised some summary about it, when he has time
16:20:55 <abadger1999> Formulas is good if someone wants to push it.
Otherwise, there's no one to do the work.
16:21:05 * nirik subscribed but hasn't had time to send yet. will try today.
16:21:15 <mmaslano> nirik: thanks
16:21:21 <pkovar> what about stacks 2.0?
16:21:26 <abadger1999> AFAIK, there's no code. Just an idea about
16:21:45 <hhorak> btw. Dev Assistant is a bit similar project to
16:22:08 <mmaslano> pkovar: jan is not here, but he told me he'd like to
plan scl-utils-2.0 with bigger changes, maybe incompatible. Re-do what
we did wrong
16:22:36 <pkovar> ok, sounds interesting
16:23:08 <abadger1999> hhorak: Looks to me like they differ in scope.
16:23:26 <abadger1999> hhorak: formulas could (theoretically) be the
technology that enables DevAssistant.
16:23:39 <hhorak> what we can do even now is we can submit RFE bugs for
scl-utils if anybody has some ideas for enhancements..
16:23:42 <abadger1999> hhorak: but formulas would be more generic in scope.
16:24:17 <mmaslano> hhorak: yes, we'd like to do some planning meeting
what Jan should do in next release
16:24:27 <abadger1999> Is there a timeframe?
16:24:29 <mmaslano> ideas are welcomed
16:24:37 <hhorak> abadger1999: thanks for explanation
16:24:44 <mmaslano> abadger1999: at Friday we will start :)
16:25:00 * abadger1999 thinks it could help with FPC if I could tell
them -- identify things that can be changed in scls for scl2.
16:25:26 <abadger1999> takes some of the pressure off when you know that
the next version won't have the rough edges that you found in the
16:25:47 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I don't think we see same problems
16:26:06 <mmaslano> abadger1999: could we post the plan on mailing list
and comment on it?
16:26:13 <abadger1999> mmaslano: FPC is packagers.
16:26:14 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess we can put it on some public wiki
16:26:48 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I'm sorry, I ment scl heavy users has
different issues than fpc
16:27:30 <abadger1999> mmaslano: To keep growing who is going to use
scls the FPC issues should be addressed.
16:28:09 <mmaslano> abadger1999: as I said post your comments on env and
stacks mailing list in short summary
16:28:20 <abadger1999> What comments?
16:28:43 <mmaslano> features?
16:28:48 <abadger1999> ?
16:28:55 <abadger1999> I don't understand the context.
16:29:06 <abadger1999> what do you want posted to the ml?
16:29:37 <mmaslano> abadger1999: you said "identify things that can be
changed in scls for scl2". I'm saying ok, post list of those things on
16:29:43 <abadger1999> ah
16:30:29 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I think we probably need to reach out
to the other FPC members.
16:31:01 <abadger1999> timeframe for knowing the requirements, ask if
they can determine what issues exist with the current implementation by
that time, etc.
16:31:38 <abadger1999> Alternately -- will there be an scls3?
16:32:43 <mmaslano> what should be there?
16:33:45 <abadger1999> Very likely. The problem is that right now
there's only one large user of scls. As more people start using it for
their purposes limitations and issues will crop up that will need to be
16:34:45 <drieden> It would be helpful to identify these use cases and
add them to the prd.
16:34:46 <abadger1999> If scls2 is planned for, say 6 months from now...
I don't think that enough people will be using it for fedora packages to
identify most of the places where it makes things hard instead of easy
for our use case.
16:35:37 <pkovar> drieden: +1. that could also help our documentation
16:36:06 <abadger1999> drieden: Yep -- but I'm saying, it's too early to
have identified those well.
16:36:18 <drieden> pkovar Yes, that sounds good.
16:36:43 <drieden> abadger1999 Yes, that makes sense too. You cannot
see into the future. But if there are things we know of now, it would
be helpful to document.
16:36:58 <abadger1999> We/everyone who works on an scls2 should put in
the use cases they can think of but there's not enough of us/enough real
scl creators to actually do a good job of that at the moment.
16:37:26 <abadger1999> That's why I'm saying, thinking about there being
an scls3 would be a good idea.
16:37:53 <abadger1999> ie: we're thinking that this won't be the last
opportunity to break compatibility and rethink the capabilities of hte tool.
16:38:02 <abadger1999> so we don't have to get scls2 perfect.
16:38:13 <abadger1999> it just has to be better than scls1
16:38:29 <abadger1999> Does that make sense
16:38:30 <abadger1999> ?
16:38:34 <pkovar> no software is perfect ;-)
16:38:38 <drieden> :)
16:39:03 <abadger1999> pkovar: <nod> yes. But sometimes we get
(rightfully) more attached to stability and backwards compat than
16:39:09 <mmaslano> imho it's soon to discuss it
16:39:13 <abadger1999> For instance, rpm :-)
16:39:50 <tjanez> While I like the scls (whichever version :-)), I
propose we take a step back and try to identify the "big picture" of our
WG first. I think the "Charter" thread on the ML
was a good start but it died off last week...
16:40:10 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1
16:40:22 <sochotni> tjanez: indeed, not everything is about SCLs
16:40:29 <abadger1999> So one thing in the Charter discussion -- I do
not think we should be treading on the FPC ground.
16:40:51 <abadger1999> And I also think we should be careful about
creating Guidelines that we want people to follow here.
16:40:52 <drieden> tjanez +1.
16:41:26 <tjanez> abadger1999: Are you referring to my email?
16:41:32 <abadger1999> We should be coming up with guideline drafts here
but they should be approved elsewhere.
16:41:43 <abadger1999> tjanez: I think mmaslano's mostly, but yours as well.
16:42:06 <mmaslano> tjanez: I agree with big picture :)
16:42:26 <tjanez> abadger1999, I agree with you and I think we should
invent a way to cooperate with FPC
16:42:48 <tjanez> having you on-board makes it easy, though :-)
16:44:01 <tjanez> Well, I would like to iterate our discussion/ideas a
16:44:06 <abadger1999> Final discussion, redrafting, and approval of
guidelines is something that does require a great deal of attention to
precedent and attention to the big picture in Fedora. Whereas what we
seem to be leaning towards is finding out both what does and doesn't
work via experimentation with new technologies.
16:44:31 <abadger1999> tjanez: to some extent :-) But I'm only one
16:44:48 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I disagree if we use different
repository for playing with new things, it could work
16:45:12 <mmaslano> anyway that's not about what WG will do
16:45:43 <tjanez> abadger1999, I mostly agree with you
16:45:47 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I disagree but when we talk about a
different repository, I could see having other bodies like FPC that can
do guideline redrafting and approval for that repo.
16:46:08 <tjanez> could we say than that our WG is moving faster and is
not restricted so much with current guidelines/policies
16:46:14 <mmaslano> in my opinion it slows down development
16:46:27 <abadger1999> mmaslano: also -- a different repository could be
a "wild west repository"... ie: (most) anything goes.
16:46:40 <mmaslano> abadger1999: what I understood from Fedora.next
proposal, some WGs should have less strict policies or no policies
16:46:52 <abadger1999> and in that sort of repo, I wouldn't have a
problem with no guidelines.
16:47:05 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I would be fine with wild west for
images, scl2, ...
16:47:33 <tjanez> So our WG is like "incubation" of ideas
16:47:52 <tjanez> and good ideas are then re-iterated and formalized
16:47:53 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I saw that a little different -- we
would have some "repositories" with less strict policies. But those
weren't related to the WGs.
16:47:55 <mmaslano> tjanez: that's something to put in PRD :)
16:48:03 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Cool :-)
16:48:37 <abadger1999> mmaslano: So that might be something to put into
our charter/prd -- one of the things we want to deliver is anything-goes
16:48:41 <mmaslano> tjanez: I asked Matt few weeks back, it shouldn't be
PRD,because Env and STacks is not a real product. So starting with ideas
should be ok
16:49:40 <tjanez> What we still have to do is at least somewhat define
the terms environments and stacks
16:49:50 <tjanez> stacks will be easier, I think
16:50:01 <tjanez> since we all have some image of it
16:50:08 <drieden> mmaslano Is there a PRD template that we are supposed
16:50:25 <tjanez> environments (from Matt slides) are not so clear, IMO
16:50:37 <mmaslano> drieden: no, I guess only Workstation has final
version of PRD, but we had only list of areas/ideas
16:50:44 * abadger1999 notes -- to organize our thoughts it might be
helpful to open a gobby doc.
16:51:00 <hhorak> tjanez: +1 defining the terms also seems essential to me
16:51:22 <tjanez> abadger1999: I haven't used gobby yet, but go ahead,
teach us :-)
16:51:31 <drieden> mmaslano Ok. It might be good to have our outline of
what we are going to put into the PRD and then focus on those areas.
The terms is a great thing to have in the PRD.
16:51:43 <abadger1999> yum install gobby
16:52:36 <abadger1999> join session
16:52:44 <abadger1999> Host: gobby.fedoraproject.org
16:52:48 <abadger1999> Port: 6522
16:52:59 <abadger1999> Name: arbitrary to identify you
16:53:12 <abadger1999> It'll ask for a passwd
16:53:18 <mmaslano> drieden: I thought we should discuss items, which
Matt mentioned here http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#24
16:53:27 <abadger1999> You can get that by doing: ssh fedorapeople.org
16:53:47 <abadger1999> If you don't have access to fedorapeople/the ssh
command doesn't work, I can PM it to you.
16:53:50 <mmaslano> drieden: and add some parts, which are needed by
other WGs, like using containers
16:54:57 <drieden> mmaslano thanks, looking now.
16:56:27 <tjanez> Ok, I'm on gobby now
16:58:13 <abadger1999> tjanez: Cool. I started a doc:Env and Stacks Charter
16:58:34 <tjanez> abadger1999: Yea, I follow you typing live
16:59:18 <drieden> abadger1999 I am unable to get gobby I get permission
16:59:42 <abadger1999> drieden: k. When trying to connect to
16:59:48 <tjanez> mmaslano: Regarding our charter and Matt's slide 24,
how much into details regarding the implementation details we want to go?
17:00:20 <mmaslano> tjanez: now, high level, abstract.
17:00:28 <mmaslano> tjanez: I don't we need details in Charter
17:00:51 <tjanez> mmaslano: Ok, thanks for clearing that up
17:00:56 <drieden> abadger1999 I can get to gobby.fedoraproject.org.
Permission denied with ssh
17:01:31 <abadger1999> drieden: k. Private messaging you the gobby.fp.o
17:01:42 <tjanez> mmaslano: I'm also in favor of a high-level document
17:03:34 <abadger1999> Okay -- we don't all have access to the gobby
package it seems.
17:03:41 <abadger1999> Maybe something like etherpad?
17:03:56 <samkottler> sorry, my TZ's are apparently totally messed up
17:03:59 * abadger1999 figures out where public hosting of that kind of
17:04:00 <mmaslano> etherpad would be fine, if we have some public instance
17:04:16 * abadger1999 found one -- setting up a doc
17:04:53 <abadger1999> http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR
17:05:07 <abadger1999> Okay, hopefully that works better for everyone.
17:05:27 <abadger1999> Sorry everyone that just got gobby set up :-)
17:07:38 <abadger1999> when I read about env and stacks in mattdm's
document... it really seemed like two words to mean the same thing.
17:08:07 <abadger1999> "stacks of software to enable running/developing
17:08:19 <abadger1999> "isolated environments to enable
running/developing other software"
17:08:59 <mmaslano> no, see http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#18
17:09:08 <mmaslano> and http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#19
17:09:27 <mmaslano> but it's too cloud centric, we should think bigger :)
17:09:59 <mmaslano> samkottler: do you know where to put cartridges?
17:10:07 <mmaslano> samkottler: and do you know everything about them?
17:10:40 <samkottler> mmaslano: I wouldn't say *everything* but yeah, I
know mostly how they work :)
17:10:59 <samkottler> mmaslano: I think they fall into the environments
17:11:00 <mmaslano> samkottler: I know a little. It's not clear to me
what should we do with them
17:11:05 <samkottler> or in a third category
17:11:19 <samkottler> because they're kind of both the runtime and pull
in the software
17:11:23 <samkottler> I would lean toward environments
17:12:01 <abadger1999> mmaslano: <nod> I can agree with the examples...
I just don't know that the separation he makes between them really
17:12:01 <mmaslano> samkottler: and how should they change or should
they go into some repo, to make them available easier or what?
17:12:31 * abadger1999 is a little hesitant about "desktop environments"
but is willing to see where something specific takes that first.
17:12:44 <samkottler> mmaslano: hmm they're expected to be git repos so
it doesn't really make sense to package them IMO
17:12:56 <samkottler> although we could work with the openshift folks to
figure out a sane way to package them up
17:13:00 <samkottler> which I imagine will be useful for them, too
17:13:17 <samkottler> abadger1999: yeah, we might end up stepping on
some toes with that one
17:13:20 <mmaslano> samkottler: so that's probably the goal for cartridges
17:13:26 <hhorak> Having in mind a difference between env. and stacks in
a modularity aspect (http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#17), then cartridges
seem more like stacks to me
17:13:28 <abadger1999> samkottler: alternately -- the goal could be to
eventually have a Fedora Cartridges git repo.
17:13:41 <abadger1999> ie: the git repos are the "packaging"
17:14:48 <samkottler> abadger1999: true, although I wonder if we're
going to overlap too much with the work that the openshift team is doing
17:15:24 <tjanez> hhorak, +1, as I understand OpenShift Cartridges, they
are more like stacks
17:15:42 <abadger1999> samkottler: I'm... not sure :-) I guess Fedora
got its start as providing addon packages to RHL that had a known
quality to them.
17:15:42 <tjanez> also, Matt put them under Stacks
17:16:11 <abadger1999> samkottler: And having community (instead of 100%
paid people) making and maintaining those packages.
17:16:21 <abadger1999> I could see a similar relationship with the
17:16:22 <mmaslano> does it matter? stacks or environment?
17:16:32 <abadger1999> mmaslano: +1 to does not matter :-)
17:16:52 <samkottler> abadger1999: yeah, we should start that
conversation with the openshift team, though
17:16:56 <abadger1999> <nod>
17:17:23 <abadger1999> samkottler: So... probably coordination with both
inside Fedora Groups and outside Fedora groups is one of our
17:17:27 <samkottler> mmaslano: not really beyond semantics IMO
17:17:57 <abadger1999> (like -- coordinate with openshift team about
guidelines and what we provide vs what they provide. Coordinate withh
infra for being able to host a git repo for cartridges)
17:18:42 <samkottler> abadger1999: I'm not a huge fan of using
fedorahosted for this, though
17:19:11 <abadger1999> samkottler: yeah, I.... am not sure fedorahosted
is a good fit.
17:19:26 <abadger1999> samkottler: But wouldn't that be something we
coordinate with infra?
17:19:48 <samkottler> abadger1999: yep, I just suspect that FH will be
the first suggestion for where it should live :)
17:21:28 <abadger1999> Us: "We need git repos for hosting experimental
openshift cartridges with the eventual goal of providing them similar to
how we provide yum repositories". Infra: "We currently have git hosting
via fedorahosted" Us: "Once we get to $Size or $Officialness or $Other
we probably want something more that satisfies those needs better"
17:21:44 <abadger1999> Infra: "Okay, let's talk about budget and
timeframe for that"
17:22:08 <abadger1999> samkottler: something like that is how I suspect
it might go? Sound reasonable?
17:22:19 <samkottler> abadger1999: yep, WFM
17:27:36 * tjanez will have another meeting in 3 minutes
17:28:12 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I'm also leaving
17:28:19 <abadger1999> tjanez: Note -- we might want to implement the
"definitely conflicts with pacaging guidelines" packages in a separate
repo from the "experimental but aimed at eventually coming from the main
17:28:25 <abadger1999> as separate repositories.
17:28:31 <mmaslano> abadger1999: could you chair rest of the meeting or
I can end meeting in few minutes
17:28:45 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I'm okay to end
17:29:04 <abadger1999> mmaslano: what do we want to do to continue the
charter work this week?
17:29:37 <abadger1999> I can paste what we have into a wiki page.
17:29:59 <abadger1999> But people will need to add things to it if we
expect it to see progress this week :-)
17:30:14 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1 regarding the eventually coming from
the main Fedora repos
17:30:16 <mmaslano> abadger1999: we can continue on the piratepad, but
please do backup :)
17:30:41 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Roger -- I'll copy to a wiki page after
17:31:11 <abadger1999> And set a reminder to check the piratepad later
this week for updates.
17:31:54 <abadger1999> mmaslano: what should people do this week to move
17:32:37 <mmaslano> abadger1999: continue with proposal?
17:33:12 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Right :-) I mean -- what should people
actually focus on doing?
17:33:55 <mmaslano> probably on their area of expertise :) which is bad
because cartridges, containers, ... not so many people
17:34:34 <mmaslano> but they can add also their ideas from their area if
it fits into big plan of WG
17:34:36 <abadger1999> Something like: "Everyone send one general thing
they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want
to work on to the mailing list this week"
17:35:21 <mmaslano> abadger1999: +1
17:35:40 <hhorak> and all can start learning something about cartridges..
17:36:58 <pkovar> sounds good to me
17:37:26 <abadger1999> Cool.
17:37:30 <drieden> sounds good to me too
17:37:43 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1 on making thing go forward
17:37:44 <abadger1999> #action everyone to send one general thing they
want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to
work on to the mailing list this week
17:39:00 <abadger1999> we'll work on fitting those into the charter
draft and maybe what we're going to actually start working on in January
based on those.
17:41:10 <mmaslano> I'll close meeting in one minute
17:42:31 <hhorak> So, see you everyone!
17:42:38 <samkottler> cya!
17:42:49 <drieden> bye bye
17:42:51 <pkovar> bye
17:43:04 <mmaslano> #endmeeting
More information about the devel