On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional and required...
I would possibly suggest that they're all optional, there's lots of different cloud technologies there a lot of which are completely standalone separate products that aren't required to interoperate. By having them all optional there's a menu with the list there and people can select the particular type of cloud technologies they wish to use.
I tend to agree, the spread is so wide, and includes everything from HA stuff for the cloud to multiple distributed filesystems, to IaaS platforms..... short of us defining cloud rather restrictively, I think this needs to be all optional.