I’ve posted a Correction of Errors report to the Cloud-SIg issues Issue #352: Cloud Working Group Correction Of Errors Report - cloud-sig - Pagure.io to review what we have learned so far. .
A Team can have multiple deliverable, one of which might be an Edition.
Btw, this one also confuses me. If Edition is a “big thing”, one of the larger Fedora efforts, then I would see it as a joint effort of multiple teams.
So rather than Teams having multiple deliverables, which may include editions, shouldn’t editions be the “umbrella” things for multiple teams to contribute?
Oh! So, yeah, there’s another key historical thing here. See Fedora Working Groups: Call for Self-Nominations - devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists. From that:
Each group will have at least one FESCo member, who will act as a
liaison to FESCo and as a representative of the group at FESCo meetings.We would like each group to also have representation from other major
areas of Fedora - Quality Assurance, Infrastructure, Release
Engineering, Documentation, Design, Websites, Ambassadors, Feature
Wrangler, Marketing.
This is part of what we meant in creating “Working Groups”, a term we hadn’t used previously in Fedora. The idea was that this team brought together representatives from across the project. In practice (a lot because of struggles in non-engineering groups like docs, websites, ambassadors, marketing) this hasn’t kept up. Maybe it’s worth re-emphasizing this as we go forward, and in particular figuring out how we as Council can better support that.
I’m not reading this whole thread because woo boy, is it huge, but just to note one key thing - there really isn’t any ulterior motive here. I inadvertently caused this whole thing by filling out F35 validation tests at the last moment. I noticed the ‘self-identification test’ for Cloud had not been done, so I did it, and because I’m good at useless trivia, instead of just seeing that /etc/os-release said “something about Cloud” and marking it as passed, my brain stuck on it saying “Cloud Edition” when I was pretty sure we’d swapped in Atomic Host for Cloud as the “edition” years ago. Which is, in fact, what happened. So I filed a bug. All of this is just fallout from that.
This could’ve come up at any point in the last few years, but because no-one with my nitpicky mind happened to run this validation test and question the “edition” word, it didn’t.
2 Likes
sorry, just a further clarification - my bug was literally about taking two words out of the /etc/os-release file. It does not imply that any further change took place or is intended to take place. Nothing at all about the F35 release would’ve happened differently if I hadn’t filed that bug. It’s not as if Cloud was going to be an “edition” for F35 right up until the last second when some sudden decision was made that it wasn’t one. It was never planned or intended to be an “edition” of F35, as it was not an “edition” of F34 or F33 or any other release since - per the Wayback Machine - F25 (F25 was the first release where we listed Atomic instead of Cloud).
1 Like
On another topic, I do think there’s kind of a clear mismatch here if you think about cloud in general.
What’s the most important cloud? Love it or hate it, it’s EC2.
What do you get if you go to EC2, say you want to deploy a VM, and search for “Fedora”? You get the Cloud base images. (You also get the release day Cloud base images, which is kind of terrifying, but that’s another discussion). These are in the obviously-preferred “AWS Marketplace” box and are “free tier eligible”. If you search that box for “coreos”, you get nothing at all from Fedora (you get some flatcar stuff).
To find CoreOS images, you have to search the “community AMIs” dumping ground, which is where they are. If you search “fedora” in that box you get one vaguely current FCOS image, plus a bunch of terrifyingly outdated Atomic Host and Cloud Base images. You have to search “coreos” to get more than this.
From this I conclude that a) EC2’s search is awful and badly needs some better smarts to not show wildly outdated and insecure base images, but more importantly, b) it doesn’t match up that on the one hand we clearly sort of treat Fedora CoreOS as if it’s our primary ‘thing’ for a cloud environment - that’s why it got the spot on the editions roster that was originally occupied by Cloud itself - but on the other hand, the most-prominent Fedora images in the most-used cloud are not FCOS images, but Fedora Cloud images.
1 Like
You make a valid point. Why is it like this today? I can try to explain:
- The marketplace process in the past has been somewhat manual IIUC.
- Fedora CoreOS updates 3 streams approximately every two weeks (sometimes more than that).
- The only way to sustainably keep FCOS up to date in the AWS marketplace is to use automation.
- We started down this path and I believe everything is in place (waiting on @davdunc to implement the automation in AWS).
- Fedora Cloud releases once every 6 months.
- @davdunc updates the marketplace entries for Fedora Cloud when it comes out.
You are definitely following the “new user clicky around and find stuff” path and I’d say it’s a gap we need to close. But I also think a good chunk of our user base will follow the docs and pull the AMI from the website or analyze our published stream metadata (which the website is populated from) to get the AMIs.
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: Are we still rebuilding/updating Cloud Base images regularly?
After reading the thread, my take is: the Cloud/Atomic WG/DustyM have been producing images intended to be Cloud Edition images. Formally, there is no Cloud Edition. Nevertheless, those images are hugely popular. People involved want to continue producing Cloud images, and want them to remain significantly different in content and format from Server and Fedora CoreOS and other editions. People involved are happy with the “Cloud” name. MatthewM and AdamW want the formal status to be clarified and process to be followed.
I think it makes sense for Council to reassert Cloud as an edition. The deliverable may be called “Cloud Edition” or “Cloud Edition Base”, let’s just make this consistent. It should also be made visible on getfedora.o. The WG should be renamed back to Cloud to reduce confusion. The WG should review the PRD and refresh if necessary.
This sounds about right. It’s mostly clarifications/formalizations/cleanups, rather than any major shifts.
6 Likes