Meeting started at 2025-03-05 16:30:17 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora_coreos_meeting'

!hi

Jean-Baptiste Trystram (jbtrystram) - he / him / his

!hi

Adam Piasecki (c4rt0) - he / him / his

!hi

Dusty Mabe (dustymabe) - he / him / his

!hi

Hristo Marinov (hricky) - he / him / his

Good morning/afternoon everyone. Let's give it another minute for more people to join

!hi

None (jlebon)

Let's get started!

!hi

Dipsy Link (dipsy)

I'm not seeing any action items from the last meeting. Let me check the meeting notes from last week

There's one from the meeting log.

jbtrystram work to get new zincati that supports updates via OCI into upcoming `next`/`testing` stream releases.

I know there were a few moving parts here. We've started the releases for the week and I think everything was completed

we were working on that and then found a late issue and decided to delay one more cycle

which is OK, because we're not shipping beta yet, but we really are going to try to get it in for beta

which is OK, because we're not shipping F42 beta on `next` yet, but we really are going to try to get it in for beta

sounds good! I'll re-action it

I reviewed the schedule yesterday and the dates have not changed. We're still in-between beta freeze and beta release.

Early beta release target date is this Tuesday

Correct. There is one thing we need to do, though

https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1851

we still need to plan for `[ ] Test Week `

i.e. open a ticket, set a date, organize

I think Renata Ravanelli has helped organize in the past. Maybe should could mentor some new folks to organize

Good point! Is anyone interested in organizing and executing the test week for Fedora 42?

For the date we should maybe try to target ~ 03/18 (i.e. when we're pretty confident we'll have a beta) or the following week

I'm up for the challenge. I did help Renata Ravanelli and ash the last 2 test days.

Maybe 03/24 would be best?

apiaseck: that would be awesome

Can this be affected by the virtual f2f we have possibly going on?

marmijo gave a cookie to c4rt0. They now have 4 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle

apiaseck: Could you open a ticket for it and collaborate with Sumantro Mukherjee ?

apiaseck: possibly..

Sure, let's agree on dates maybe next week, we might know more.

+1

Is there a schedule for the Go/No-Go meetings? Is there likely one tomorrow?

oh, let me set an action for test day before we move on

oh, let me set an action for test week before we move on

They typically happen on thursdays. They get announced on the devel list I think

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E4X24HM32JN5X34ORRMUXHLRDZZOMGQL/

I'm up for the challenge. I did help Renata Ravanelli and ash the last 2 test days events.

dustymabe: thanks! I'll attend tomorrow meeting

okay, lets go to the agenda topics

I ran the script and updated the list yesterday. There were no new additions or deferrals this week.

I went through the list and updated info from previous meetings and checked off any that didn't look to affect FCOS.

should we check status on ones we are tracking?

Sounds like a good idea

there's also change 239 that I wasn't sure on

there's also change 239 that I wasn't sure about

It's a new package set, so it shouldn't affect us, but it looked like it might be something we'd want to take a look at

It's a new package set, so it shouldn't affect us, but it seemed like it might be something we'd want to take a look at

Yeah. It definitely has interest in terms of confidential compute. Maybe it's on travier's radar already

Either way this still looks like early enablement for the F42 timeframe. I imagine there will be a second proposal for F43 or 44 with more meat in the future.

I'll make a note that it might be of interest to FCOS

Let's go through the ones we're tracking

but as the discussion in the ticket reflects.. there might be some work we need to do to migrate some of our existing installs

so I think the changes in the rest of Fedora have happened already and we've absorbed them.

Jonathan Lebon: is that accurate?

marmijo: either way I think for the purposes of "shipping F42" there's nothing we have to do today

btw, this was change 107

yeah, that's a migration question here. the easiest answer being "don't migrate", which AIUI matches what we're doing in other variants

we could still change the tmpfiles.d entry so that new installs get the updated `/usr/local/sbin`

Jonathan Lebon: any drawback to that approach?

drift

inconsistency between upgraded vs new nodes

is it really a problem though ?

jbtrystram: the drift? or leaving it like it is?

the drift

ehh. I think it depends.. in this case I think the drift isn't particularly worrisome

but you never know

it doesn't feel like a big issue to me, but i don't have your experience

If I had to choose I would choose to make it so new F42 and above systems get the updated locations

and just leave the old ones the way they were

i don't think it's a concern no. just noting

we can add that to the ticket

i added a ticket earlier to that effect :)

i added a comment earlier to that effect :)

Change 117

yeah, it's not pressing but that still makes sense to do for zincati

I think there is an F43 change where the change owner was going to go through and open PRs

let me check

can't find it now

Jonathan Lebon: how big of a change would it be? we do have a pending release coming up :)

marmijo: I think the summary is that this doesn't need action in this moment

dustymabe: yeah, it will need careful testing. users+ostree is tricky

Jonathan Lebon: so maybe waiting for them to open a PR isn't useful anyway because we'll need to be really involved in making sure it doesn't break things ?

actually, i think i misunderstood the situation. i'll comment in the ticket.

We're going to run out of time, do we want to discuss the next topic (move from gdisk to fdisk) or save it for the next meeting?

marmijo: it should be quick

so.. I added the meeting label to this one. mostly trying to raise visibility on it to see if we can find a volunteer for the work (or maybe one already exists I don't know about )

that's pretty much it

Thanks dustymabe! I see there's a placeholder for a fedora-coreos-config issue in the description. Should that be updated?

perhaps.. I think maybe travier would know better

there's WIP work for it in https://github.com/coreos/ignition/pull/1929

marmijo: i think it's just saying that this issue tracks the f-c-c part

ah! That makes sense

Jonathan Lebon: nice! I had missed that linkback in the ticket

this is one of those things that makes sense to do, but is a lot of work and is completely behind the scenes and has no visible benefit to the user

Jonathan Lebon dustymabe: Thank you both for commenting on these issues with updates!

I'll move on to Open Floor since we only have a few minutes left.

Over the next few weeks, a lot of countries will shift to Daylight Savings Time. Please note that this meeting is scheduled in UTC, so the start time may be different in your time zone

+1 - good calll out marmijo

I'd be happy to !info that

Also, if you would like to host this meeting, please add your name to this rotation: https://hackmd.io/OSVZR5vETkmKuA9A_KAzUg?view#Current-Hosting-Schedule

FYI: I'll be AFK most of next week and might not make this meeting

Also FYI: jdoss opened https://github.com/coreos/afterburn/pull/1165 for our recent discussions about proxmox and static networking support

Thanks for joining everyone. Have a great.