https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ovirt_Node_Spin I noticed that virt-manager-tui is in rawhide finally, but the package name implies that it's not going to be in f16? virt-manager-tui.noarch 0.9.0-4.fc17 rawhide Cole, is this intentional or just smth that we need to follow up on? Also, I've noticed that ovirt-node needs refreshing... iirc apevec did tag/release of 2.0.1 from ovirt-node git (as an aside 'News' section of website still says 2.0.0 is latest in git) ovirt-node.noarch 2.0.0-1.fc16 rawhide Alan, what are the current blockers preventing us from getting a 2.0.1 ISO hosted on ovirt.org download page? Lastly... We've gotten approvals from the Design and QE leads for the oVirt Node Spin Feature on their respective mailing lists. But Spin SIG seems to have disbanded. I'm following up with Fedora program manager (cc'd) to see what our next steps can be here. Cheers, Perry
On 07/30/2011 03:16 PM, Perry Myers wrote:> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ovirt_Node_Spin > > I noticed that virt-manager-tui is in rawhide finally, but the package > name implies that it's not going to be in f16? > virt-manager-tui.noarch 0.9.0-4.fc17 rawhide > > Cole, is this intentional or just smth that we need to follow up on? > > Also, I've noticed that ovirt-node needs refreshing... iirc apevec did > tag/release of 2.0.1 from ovirt-node git (as an aside 'News' section of > website still says 2.0.0 is latest in git) > ovirt-node.noarch 2.0.0-1.fc16 rawhide > > Alan, what are the current blockers preventing us from getting a 2.0.1 > ISO hosted on ovirt.org download page? > > Lastly... We've gotten approvals from the Design and QE leads for the > oVirt Node Spin Feature on their respective mailing lists. But Spin SIG > seems to have disbanded. I'm following up with Fedora program manager > (cc'd) to see what our next steps can be here. > > Cheers, >AFAIK Jared Smith is taking SPIN SIG issue IRC Log: 19:36:00 <athmane> is ovirt node cloud-sig business ? 19:36:43 <rbergeron> athmane: it's more spins-sig business, at the moment, or "what to do in lieu of lack of spins-sig movement" business 19:36:56 <rbergeron> i know jsmith is looking into it at the moment. 19:36:57 <athmane> ok 19:37:22 <rbergeron> if it's not getting traction, we could perhaps take a look at it, but let's hold off and see where it gets in the next few days. 19:37:37 <rbergeron> but technically it's spins-sig stuffs. 19:37:41 <jsmith> Gimme until early next week to try to get some consensus on what to do to move forward 19:38:12 <athmane> jsmith: ok -- Athmane Madjoudj
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 10:16 -0400, Perry Myers wrote:> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ovirt_Node_Spin > > I noticed that virt-manager-tui is in rawhide finally, but the package > name implies that it's not going to be in f16? > virt-manager-tui.noarch 0.9.0-4.fc17 rawhide > > Cole, is this intentional or just smth that we need to follow up on?The split for F16 alpha happened this past week which is why rawhide packages are now F17. AFAICT, there aren't F16 repos available yet, but there packages for virt-manager-tui for F16. It just needs karma to be pushed: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/virt-manager-0.9.0-3.fc16> > Also, I've noticed that ovirt-node needs refreshing... iirc apevec did > tag/release of 2.0.1 from ovirt-node git (as an aside 'News' section of > website still says 2.0.0 is latest in git) > ovirt-node.noarch 2.0.0-1.fc16 rawhideAFAIK, this corresponds to the 2.0.0 tag in master.> > Alan, what are the current blockers preventing us from getting a 2.0.1 > ISO hosted on ovirt.org download page?We just finished the changes for 2.0.1 yesterday, they should be pushed up to master this weekend or Monday at the latest. Then we just need F16 repos to build the ISO and get it hosted.> > Lastly... We've gotten approvals from the Design and QE leads for the > oVirt Node Spin Feature on their respective mailing lists. But Spin SIG > seems to have disbanded. I'm following up with Fedora program manager > (cc'd) to see what our next steps can be here. > > Cheers, > > Perry > > _______________________________________________ > Ovirt-devel mailing list > Ovirt-devel at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ovirt-devel
On 07/30/2011 10:16 AM, Perry Myers wrote:> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ovirt_Node_SpinWanted to give an update on this. As mentioned earlier, we have approval from QE and Design teams. In the absence of the Spin SIG being able to grant an approval, this was passed to release engineering who reviewed the spin. Unfortunately, based upon the current release engineering rules (which are heavily oriented towards Desktop usage and not Server usage) oVirt Node really can't be accepted as is into Fedora as an official Spin. Details are here: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4864 Basically in order to get this accepted by releng it looks like we'd have to make so many fundamental changes to what oVirt Node is, that it wouldn't be worth it in terms of leveraging the Fedora community for visibility and testing. (For example, we already had to remove our blacklisting which increased image size from ~150MB to ~250MB) I think a more reasonable plan would be to focus on oVirt Node as a derivative distribution that is focused on virtualization deployment. We can absolutely highlight that oVirt Node is built on Fedora and leverages the great work that the Fedora team/community has done, but it should be considered a separate distribution that is more closely associated with the oVirt brand/project umbrella.>From that perspective, we would build oVirt Node ISOs in parallel withFedora releases and host them directly with ovirt.org site. And we'd only need one variant (the one with blacklisting enabled). This should be community decision, not unilateral, so I'd like other people's thoughts on this. Chime in :) Perry