[DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

Jason Brooks jbrooks at redhat.com
Tue Nov 3 20:44:01 UTC 2015

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb at redhat.com>
> To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" <cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org>, server at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:43:27 AM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship
> Hi all,
> During today's Cloud Working Group meeting we had a short but spirited
> discussion on the roles of the Cloud and Server Working Group and the
> editions we're producing.
> I wanted to open a discussion on that topic (see also [1]) ahead of
> planning for F24 to see if the current setup makes sense, how we can
> collaborate, and so forth. I have opinions but I want to kick off a
> discussion without starting from a specific viewpoint.
> And... go!

My two cents: I'm looking at Fedora's editions with certain 
expectations. I see Workstation, and I know what I'm going to 
get and where I expect it to run. I see Server, and I expect:

* a fairly minimal image
* something I can run on bare metal, VM or cloud

Instead, Server is a big image (2.1GB) that's not supposed to be run
in the cloud. 

Or, I assume I can rough something out w/ vagrant in VMs, and then
deploy that on metal, but in Fedora, those are different variants,
and things like LVM vs. no LVM (if I recall correctly) come into 
play, and there's no vagrant box for Fedora Server, because that's
a cloud thing (I guess??). A no-cloud rule for Fedora Server feels 
antiquated and weird to me. 

It's not the end of the world that my expected Fedora Server edition
is in reality split into two separate editions, Server and Cloud,
but I've seen it mentioned that Cloud Edition adoption has been slow --
it might be more findable for people if it's presented with or 
somehow integrated with the Server Edition.

Finally, I think that the movement of Fedora Atomic has been a 
bit slow, and I've witnessed the confusion of having cloud-base
and atomic smushed together (in mtgs & such). If running well in 
cloud environments was part of the Server WG charter, and atomic 
was the focus in the Cloud WG, that'd be a cleaner arrangement. But,
maybe this just means that atomic needs its own SIG (or WG -- I'm
not 100% clear on the difference).

Of course, just because some might expect the Editions to work a 
certain way doesn't mean that this is the right way to do it, and
I know that many things went into the definition of the WGs the
way there are.

Regards, Jason

> [1] https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/127
> --
> Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
> jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
> _______________________________________________
> server mailing list
> server at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

More information about the server mailing list