while true; do sleep 1h; rpm-ostree compose tree...; done

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:33:12PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> * How often updates should be issued?  Who can decide this?

Since this is nominally a Cloud WG product at this point, I think that group
will claim the decision if no one else has any strong objections or other
ideas. Updates should be produced whenever any Fedora packages are updated.
Colin tells me that an update where no packages that are actually in the
tree are affected is optimized as a noop, so effectively this can be run as
part of the regular nightly push.


> * Which releases are updated, i.e. does the ostree lifecycle differ
>   from standard Fedora?  Does the Atomic team need to check in with
>   FESCo about this?

Having a different lifecycle was suggested but dropped. This _would_ be a
FESCo decision at this point, and we've said that we aren't ready for
different lifecycles.

Plus, since the discussion was to aim for a shorter lifecycle, I think
keeping them in sync with the rest is a benefit we can provide for users
with minimal extra work. We can then watch the usuage patterns and perhaps
move to a shorter cycle in the future.


> * ...which leads to how much storage is going to be required.  We can
>   get storage, this is an important project and that is not a
>   blocker.  But we can't plan without any idea whatsoever of
>   magnitude.  This has to come from the Atomic team AFAICT.

Yes. It looks like the current tree is fairly large. Larger than I would
have expected, really.


> * Was it already figured out how mirrors deal with this content?
>   Please understand the last I heard about the project, there was an
>   issue with the number of HTTP requests involved.  I expect the code
>   has moved on significantly since then.  Is there still some issue
>   for mirrors?

Yes, that's an issue.

Initial plan is to _not_ mirror the content. Colin has a proposal for
"static deltas" which will mitigate the issue but at the cost of more space.
<https://mail.gnome.org/archives/ostree-list/2013-July/msg00005.html>

When we have that in place, we'll need a discussion with the mirrors about
whether we want to 

  a) expand the informal agreement of "~ 1TB" to maybe twice that(
     especially given that we're at 1.4TB already)
  b) mirror atomic as a separate tree so mirrors need to opt in



> I don't want to be overly aggressive, but it would be disappointing if
> we can't get this off the ground timely simply because knowledge isn't
> being shared and questions aren't being asked and answered directly
> and candidly.  I'm not sure that's the case here, but in poking around
> I hear people saying they don't have information.  That seems out of
> place in my Fedora experience, so it puzzles me.

Ditto!

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader