Hi,
first things first. No one objected to move our meeting tomorrow to Libera.chat.
== Change over == ========================================================= Fedora Server IRC meeting Wednesday, June 2 17:00 ==UTC==
irc.libera.chat #fedora-meeting =========================================================
Details about registration: https://libera.chat/guides/registration This documentation is helpful. Even me as a newbie managed like a charm to register my nick.
== Agenda == 1. Deploying services via RPM and Ansible (continuation) 2. Fedora Server Documentation review
Ad 1: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Using_Ansible
I already added / refined use case „Wildfly“ as as described by jwhimpel (via email) and will hopefully manage to complete the other use cases of his email until tomorrow.
We had a short discussion at java-devel about it: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/java-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
We need a plan about our further proceedings.
Ad 2: see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/
We have now sufficient content to start and make the content publicly available (Marked as beta for now). Most of the articles are written by me. We need to review each of them. Maybe we can split them up and each o us take on the review of an article. Some items are already reviewed.
I will add a list of articles needing a review at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Documentation tomorrow before our meeting.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:34 PM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
== Agenda ==
- Deploying services via RPM and Ansible (continuation)
- Fedora Server Documentation review
Last week's agenda had some items on it that weren't discussed due to time constraints. [1]
Among those are two standouts: * Explore opportunities for cooperation with Cloud WG / SIG AND Facilitated and improved support for using Base Cloud Images * Revisiting defaults... filesystem/partitioning
Two meetings ago [2] Server WG discussed default filesystem/partitioning briefly with the idea of consider Btrfs at some point, but not for Fedora 35. Whereas it was floated for Cloud and there were no objections. Since that meeting a change proposal has landed to make Btrfs the default for Cloud [3]. The question has been raised by Peter Boy in that proposal's devel@ thread that the proposal itself is out of order. [4] Since it is a Server working group member concerned about the proper order of things, I think that needs to be settled by Server working group folks.
And also I suggest that Server and Cloud folks need to have direct talks about the cooperation and alignment questions.
My recollection from old prior conversations is that merging the SIGs is something that's been said once or twice, but not discussed or agreed to. It suggests to me possibly cooperation is useful, but low interest on a formal merging. They have been since day one, and since then, treated as rather different products. In particular the artifacts produced.
Anyway, in case there are questions among the Server working group as it relates to either the relationship between Server and Cloud folks, or artifacts, or filesystem/partitioning things - it would be best to get that aired out thoroughly sooner than later. And if there are no concerns or impediments, to communicate that equally clearly.
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org...
[2] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora-server/fedora-server.2021-05-...
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraCloudBtrfsByDefault
[4] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
-- Chris Murphy
At the request of Chris Murphy, the following change to the agenda:
== Agenda == 1. Explore opportunities for cooperation with Cloud WG / SIG AND Facilitated and improved support for using Base Cloud Images 2. Deploying services via RPM and Ansible (continuation) 3. Fedora Server Documentation review
Ad 1: We discussed opportunities of a cooperation with Dusty Mabe in early March. One result was that Dusty is not back from leave until April. Only then can we continue. Dusty raised the issue at one of the first cloud meetings March 30. Now it's the end of May, without any progress. We as Server WG have clearly expressed our interest several times, last time in a meeting end of March.
Proposal: Defer this topic (low in priority) and wait to see what Cloud WG comes up with. Regarding a VM version of Fedora Server, we might have to seek an interim solution.
Ad 2: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Using_Ansible
I already added / refined use case „Wildfly“ as described by jwhimpel (via email) and will hopefully manage to complete the other use cases of his email until tomorrow.
We had a short discussion at java-devel about it: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/java-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
We need a plan about our further proceedings.
Ad 3: see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/
We have now sufficient content to start and make the content publicly available (Marked as beta for now). Most of the articles are written by me. We need to review each of them. Maybe we can split them up and each o us take on the review of an article. Some items are already reviewed.
I will add a list of articles needing a review at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Documentation tomorrow before our meeting.
Apart from the agenda, I would like to prevent the creation of legends.
Am 01.06.2021 um 22:34 schrieb Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com:
…… Two meetings ago [2] Server WG discussed default filesystem/partitioning briefly with the idea of consider Btrfs at some point, but not for Fedora 35.
[2] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora-server/fedora-server.2021-05-...
It starts 17:34:52 with Michel: "I wonder if the partitioning changes are no longer relevant now that we use btrfs by default“ "but yeah the old 50GB for / was a pain“ me: "Server does not use btrfs" nirik: "server defaults to XFS and LVM“
So the discussion starts with an erroneous recollection by Michel, what has been cleared up. Other contributions express contentment with the current XFS/LVM combination.
Resume dcavalca 17:40:49: "once btrfs gets better support for raid5/6 and maybe encryption, then I think it's worth a rediscussion“ and 17:50:06 Eighth_Doctor: "nirik, pboyHB: there are a few things on the list before attempting to switch Server to Btrfs by default“
Maybe, my englisch language skills are limited, but to take that as "with the idea of consider Btrfs at some point, but not for Fedora 35.“ seems a bit strange.
...raised by Peter Boy in that proposal's devel@ thread that the proposal itself is out of order. [4] Since it is a Server working group member concerned about the proper order of things, I think that needs to be settled by Server working group folks.
I’ve some difficulties to translate „out of order“ in this context. My position was (and is) if Cloud WG would be honestly interested in cooperation with server and exploration of alignment of server and cloud, such a major decision, which increases the differences, would not be made in advance before any consultation (which we started to talk about 3 months ago).
server@lists.fedoraproject.org