Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs
by Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 17:08 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Installer is still a hot topic, but thats nothing we could resolve
> during our meeting and which might have to be brought up with FESCO again.
So, as cmurf has been trying to point out on desktop@ , we (QA) have
some concerns in this area too, and I know the installer team is open to
the idea of at least simplifying the non-custom partitioning path to
some extent.
This is an extremely complex topic area, though, and it may be tricky to
get the right things done if multiple teams are considering it in
different contexts in different meetings. It would probably be a Very
Good Idea to get everyone with an interest - at least anaconda team, the
product WGs (except possibly Cloud, depending on whether they intend to
use anaconda in their deliverables at all), base WG, and fesco -
together in some way to talk about it. devconf would've been great but
it already happened. Flock would be great but it's too late. Should we
try to set up some kind of special meeting / list / etherpad /
wikipage / *something* where we can all talk it over?
To give a bit of background and detail in QA's interest:
First, to ensure everyone actually knows what we're talking about, we
tend to talk about two major partitioning 'paths' in anaconda: 'guided'
and 'custom'. 'custom' may also be referred to as 'manual'.
In both newUI and oldUI, 'guided' is simply what you get if you don't
pick custom partitioning, when you are given the opportunity to do so.
In oldUI, you had the screen which gave you about five choices of
different partitioning 'approaches' (reformat the entire disk(s),
reformat only the Linux partitions, resize existing partitions to create
free space, just install into free space, maybe one or two others I
forgot). In newUI there's a different workflow after you pick target
disks on the Installation Destination spoke which, broadly, accomplishes
the same options in a rather different way.
Broadly, QA is interested in doing something similar to what desktop
wants to do, for slightly different reasons.
Historically, QA and anaconda more or less agreed on an approach whereby
the 'guided' partitioning path would be expected to work extremely
reliably: QA would undertake to test every (well, nearly every) route
through that path regularly and proactively, and anaconda would
undertake to fix the bugs. Custom partitioning was much more of a
'bonus' thing: if it worked, great. QA would test it as much as we had
time for, and anaconda would fix as many bugs as they could after fixing
higher priority stuff. I went back and looked at the history, and in the
earlier days of Fedora, the guided path was consciously designed to be
very 'choice free'.
Later in the 'oldUI' days, the path to more complexity in the 'guided'
path was opened up by a sort of hack. Some people did not want LVM
(after it was made default waaaaay back in FC3 or something), and
eventually this demand became so persistent that it was decided to stick
a checkbox in the 'guided' partitioning path which let you get a plain
ext(3/4) layout instead of an LVM layout. This was always a kind of ugly
compromise, it wasn't intended to be a design decision. It was
manageable, because a plain ext3/4 layout is a fairly simple thing that
isn't likely to break much.
This context was kind of lost in the newUI re-design, and the 'I don't
want LVM' checkbox kind of got a promotion. It's not a very good UI, and
the point of the newUI stuff was to make the UI better, so instead of
this 'special' checkbox, newUI used a dropdown menu - and because we
were all ra-ra for btrfs at the time and expecting it to be the default
Real Soon Now, and we thought we should make it easy for people to test
the thing that was soon going to be the default, it got btrfs added. So
in F18 we had a dropdown with "LVM", "ext4" and "btrfs" choices (IIRC).
With the best of intentions, we'd gone from a reluctant exception to the
'no choice' design to a dropdown which included two very different
complex choices: LVM and btrfs. So now the installer path which was
originally supposed to be minimal-choice, very robust and testable and
fixable, had become rather a lot more complex.
By F20 we'd really kind of lost track of the initial intent, so no-one
(including QA) really worried much about adding LVM thinp to the
drop-down - it's a drop-down! it's for choices! - and now, we've got
*four* major choices on the path that was originally supposed to be very
dependable and choice-free and testable and maintainable, and of course
we wound up shipping one of them entirely broken out of the box.
QA and anaconda have already discussed this and, I think, we came to a
tentative agreement that we could look at at least reducing the level of
choice in 'non-custom' partitioning, and remembering the original intent
we had (which I think both QA and anaconda teams quite like). It may be
difficult to entirely drop the selection, but it seems at least
reasonable to go back to only having one 'plain partition' choice and
one 'LVM' choice (whether it's 'regular' LVM or thinp LVM), and
relegating other choices to the 'custom' path.
QA's angle on this is that it's really extremely difficult to develop a
plausible set of storage release criteria and validation tests with the
current situation. If we map out all the possible paths through the
'non-custom' path it still comes out to something like 80, given the
current level of choice, and it's pretty impractical to test 80
different routes at every TC/RC build. Or even at every milestone. So if
we don't change the design, QA is effectively forced to test only a
reduced subset of the 'non-custom' path choices, whether we *plan* to do
that or we pretend we're going to test them all but, inevitably, don't.
Yet the installer design doesn't really communicate in any way that some
paths through 'non-custom' install are more tested/reliable than others.
Anyhow, that's kind of where we left off back in December or January,
and we probably really ought to get around to looking at this again -
and, as I said, incorporating the perspectives of the different Product
WGs and the question of variant anacondas (whether any of the Products
actually wants one, and if so, whether that's actually viable) pretty
soon.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
10 years, 1 month
Fedora Board Working Group PRD approval
by Josh Boyer
The Board has reviewed the PRDs for the Cloud, Server, and Workstation
products and approves. While there are some reservations in certain
areas, the overall goals of each product seem to be well thought out
and an benefit to Fedora going forward. Thank you for taking the time
to work through these issues.
As a next step, the Board would like to see FESCo and the Working
Groups discuss marketing of these products, both individually for each
product and collectively as the Fedora project deliverables. The
Board, FESCo, WGs, Marketing, Ambassadors and web sites team should
come up with a broader marketing/branding plan to make the transition
to a three main product deliverable world as clear and effective as
possible. We look forward to working with these groups in the near
future.
-The Board
10 years, 1 month
Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Bill Nottingham
Kevin Fenzi (kevin(a)scrye.com) said:
> Another aspect of xfs we may want to investigate and get feedback from
> filesystem folks is how well xfs works on 32bit these days.
>
> RHEL7 doesn't have a 32bit version in their beta, so they only need to
> support 64bit xfs. Does the fact that we expect to have 32bit
> workstation and/or server weigh into this decision any?
We expect to have a 32-bit workstation or server?
Not trying to troll, but I don't know that any of these were specifically
discussed or specified in the products - are there any arches where Fedora
currently exists that we don't necessarily care about having a particular
product on? (For example, if you expand to secondary arches, I'd question
the idea of s390 Workstation.)
Bill, who does have a 32-bit x86 server under his home desk...
10 years, 1 month
Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Chris Murphy
On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> wrote:
> Ext4 has its btrfs conversion tool. Changing from ext4 to XFS, for arguably negligible benefits for Workstations, will make it more difficult for Fedora users to transition to btrfs.
It's an unlikely path because a.) by default we put ext4 on LVM; b.) the convert tool uses ext4 block size to set btrfs leaf size; c.) the convert tool doesn't set extref, although it easily could. The last two are a cake walk to change compared to the first.
On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I agree switching from ext4 to XFS is likely not worthwhile.
Whether Server WG goes with ext4 or XFS on LVM, it's worthwhile for Workstation WG to mimic it merely due to simplicity because then we don't need separate installers or composes.
On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:24 AM, David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I think filesystem variance across different Fedoras really impacts QA more
> than us. We already support a lot of filesystems, but the real hit is the
> QA test matrix.
QA already tests the file system layouts being discussed. Perhaps the least tested is XFS on LVM only because the XFS test case doesn't specify LVM, so testers probably split and do some plain partition and some on LVM.
If Server WG decides on XFS, it effectively increases the Automatic/Guided/easy/default installer path's "Partition Scheme" pop-up from four to five options, and that is a problem. Adamw and I are working on a proposal to reduce these options to one or two: i.e. a WG chosen product specific default, and maybe "one other" which is decided by Base WG or FESCo.
Chris Murphy
10 years, 1 month
Updated Event Invitation: Technical Specification Working Session
by Stephen Gallagher
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Mozilla.org/NONSGML Mozilla Calendar V1.1//EN
VERSION:2.0
METHOD:REQUEST
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19700308T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19701101T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
LAST-MODIFIED:20140226T180310Z
DTSTAMP:20140226T180310Z
UID:c9b04c0e-1158-443f-9059-96fb521d882c
SUMMARY:Technical Specification Working Session
STATUS:CONFIRMED
ORGANIZER:mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com
ATTENDEE;RSVP=TRUE;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT:mailto:serve
r(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
RRULE:FREQ=DAILY;UNTIL=20140228T150000Z
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20140227T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20140227T120000
DESCRIPTION:We need to sit down and hash out the remaining issues on the F
edora Server Technical Specification. I am booking two sessions (Thursday
and Friday)\, though I hope not to need both.\n\nPlease join us in #fedora
-meeting-1 on Thursday if you would like to participate.
LOCATION:#fedora-meeting-1
CLASS:PUBLIC
TRANSP:OPAQUE
SEQUENCE:2
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
10 years, 1 month
Updated Event Invitation: Technical Specification Working Session
by Stephen Gallagher
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Mozilla.org/NONSGML Mozilla Calendar V1.1//EN
VERSION:2.0
METHOD:REQUEST
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19700308T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19701101T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
LAST-MODIFIED:20140226T180107Z
DTSTAMP:20140226T180107Z
UID:c9b04c0e-1158-443f-9059-96fb521d882c
SUMMARY:Technical Specification Working Session
STATUS:CONFIRMED
ORGANIZER:mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com
ATTENDEE;RSVP=TRUE;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT:mailto:serve
r(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
RRULE:FREQ=DAILY;UNTIL=20140217T150000Z
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20140227T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20140227T120000
DESCRIPTION:We need to sit down and hash out the remaining issues on the F
edora Server Technical Specification. I am booking two sessions (Thursday
and Friday)\, though I hope not to need both.\n\nPlease join us in #fedora
-meeting-1 on Thursday if you would like to participate.
LOCATION:#fedora-meeting-1
CLASS:PUBLIC
TRANSP:OPAQUE
SEQUENCE:1
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
10 years, 1 month
Meeting Minutes / February 25, 2014
by Máirín Duffy
Summary:
* Roll call (adamw, 16:00:51)
Target roles for F21 (adamw, 16:06:48)
======================================
* AGREED: Domain Controller is accepted as the "primary blocker
* AGREED: Database Server is accepted as the "secondary target" role for
Fedora 21 (+9/-0) (adamw, 16:10:04)
* AGREED: PostgreSQL is accepted as the "initial" database for Fedora 21
(7 pgsql, 1 mariadb, 1 abstain) (adamw, 16:11:11)
Install media and high-level view of default packages (adamw, 16:11:53)
=======================================================================
* PRD states "Fedora Server will produce two main installation
resources, a netinstall image and an offline install iso image that
allows one to install and configure featured roles offline." (adamw,
16:13:29)
* AGREED: initial maximum size for offline ISO is 4GB (+5/-0) (adamw,
1:18:45)
** AGREED: one deliverable for Fedora 21 will be a 'traditional install'
style ISO image capable of deploying the roles we consider ready for
release without a network connection (adamw, 16:32:10)
* http://boot.fedoraproject.org/download (nirik, 16:34:26)
* AGREED: we also plan a minimal deliverable of some kind for Fedora 21,
which could be a 'traditional' netinstall image, a
boot.fedoraproject.org-style 'anacondaless' image, or just a variant
method of deployment from the 'full' deliverable: this requires further
consideration (adamw, 16:46:14)
* AGREED: sshd will be installed, enabled and running by default when
deploying Fedora Server (adamw, 16:58:01)
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Polish_Ideas #3 here is how i
added it (mizmo, 17:04:43)
Action Items
============
* ACTION: sgallagh to send out a mail regarding 'core dependencies' for
discussion (adamw, 17:06:28)
* ACTION: sgallagh to send a whenisgood for a follow up meeting later
this week to discuss the rest of the things we have to settle (adamw,
17:12:14)
* ACTION: sgallagh to send whenisgood request for Thursday/Friday
(sgallagh, 17:13:25)
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-25/server-wg.20...
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-25/server-wg.20...
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-25/server-wg.20...
10 years, 2 months
WG Vote: Server Roles for F21
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
We have about a week left to formulate our technical document for
Fedora 21. To that end, I'd like to call a formal vote of the Working
Group on two of the key points: which two roles to focus on for the
initial release.
Vote A) "Domain Controller" role is our primary blocker target for
Fedora 21.
Vote B) "Database Server" roles is our secondary target for Fedora 21
Vote B2) If Vote B is approved: MariaDB or PostgreSQL as our initial
database. (This does *not* exclude the possibility of creating a Role
for the other one in the future, but it sets our priority for this cycle).
If these are approved, we will need to start documenting our technical
needs to deliver these Roles. A non-exhaustive list:
* Public API for setup and configuration (D-BUS based?)
* Packages and meta-packages to support it
* List of firewall rules/configuration
* List of data to back up; possible API to accomplish this
* (Human and non-human) resources needed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlMHrYcACgkQeiVVYja6o6ORtgCfTw/ocGzzazXlEVmkVp6uLb0V
lE4AnifptRBkNQ11UNFx2jlzvorIaBDw
=wO32
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10 years, 2 months
