F21 Self Contained Change: Remote Journal Logging

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:53:59AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 05/01/2014 10:40 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:07:25PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Hi, 
> > sorry for the late reply, I'm away on a workshop...
> > 
> >> So, this change went to fesco last week, but there were some 
> >> questions/issues around it. Could change owners respond to:
> >> 
> >> 1) sgallagh wasn't sure this was a self contained change: see:
> >> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1250#comment:19
> > 
> > sgallagh wrote "I don't consider this to be a self-contained 
> > change. If it goes into effect, we (FESCo) are basically stating
> > that this a recommended way for users to gather journald logs in a
> > central location"
> > 
> > I don't know where this conclusion comes from. This change is
> > about adding some new software... When e.g. Ganesha is proposed as
> > a Change, it doesn't that it is the recommended network filesystem
> > implementation.
> > 
> 
> It's kind of implicit in the Change proposal. When you submit a
> Change, you are indicating that you want this to be something that
> Fedora promotes (both from an engineering standpoint and a marketing one).
I modifed the Change text to indicate that it is an alternative to
exisiting solutions, and can be used in parallel.

> > He also writes "particularly since it appears to have been
> > developed without the input of the journald creators". The code in
> > question has been reviewed on the systemd mailing list, and
> > discussed internally. Also, although I didn't have anything to do
> > with initial journald creation, I have been one the people handling
> > bugs and adding features to it over the last two years.
> 
> This was an impression I got from the discussion thread up to that
> point. I didn't get a sense that the core journald developers were in
> agreement with this as the approach (and as noted above, it appeared
> that this was being pushed as the One True Way to do this).
OK.

> >> 2) FESCo in general wondered if we advertised this as a change
> >> if people would see it as the recommended/default way to handle
> >> remote system logs. Is it planned to be that, or is it just a
> >> 'here's a preview of how we hope to do this down the road'?
> > The latter. Not that I think it will not work, but making it the 
> > default/recommended thing when it's not even written yet seems 
> > premature.
> > 
> 
> Right, as noted above we should be clear about this when we talk about it.
> 
> 
> >> 3) There were general concerns around the protocol/setup... but I
> >> think those were raised before in this thread. Is there any
> >> revisiting of the protocol/etc planned? Or things are pretty set
> >> at this point?
> > This was proposed as a Change exactly for the purpose of gathering 
> > feedback, even of the fargoing kind like that. There's lot of
> > merit in the proposed protocol modifications, but it's a fairly big
> > modification, and I haven't had time to properly think about it.
> > 
> 
> So the obvious question here is whether we should accept this as a
> Change now. Given that you are contemplating a significant protocol
> modification, would it make more sense to defer this Change until F22?
> (that doesn't mean you can't have the code in Fedora, just that we
> won't market it and push people towards testing it in F21).
It's still a couple of months which should be enough to implement the
protocol change before F21. I would like to keep the Change for F21.

Zbyszek