Meeting started at 2025-10-01 17:00:17 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server '

I'll post the agenda in 2-3 minutes.

As usual, let's wait a moment for everybody to show up.

!hi

Jocelyn Gould (korora) - she / her / hers

!hello

Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

!hi

Justin Wheeler (jflory7) - he / him / his

I am sort of here. Doing other work, but I am lurking in 🙂

Welcome everybody. nirik is lurking as usual, so let's start.

Any addition / deletion / something else ?

I'm good

OK, let's start

Regarding the action, nothing new. See

Announcements

ow we havew a date for Fosdem 2026 and Fedora plannings have started.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSDEM_2026#Budget_proposal

I will participate in FOSDEM. But for our US members it maybe a bit too much.

Emmanuel Seyman: What about you?

I should be there

Any other announcements?

See also #fosdem:fedoraproject.org for more chatting about the event 🙂

Yeah, my link is a bit "special" and way too long 😳

The copy & paste issue

Tracking issue: https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/173

Draft proposal: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/2WWJH6TIUCGKYSBQFDHVIPPNY7BL7HBD/

Repo location: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server

Today in the (European) morning, I had the opportunity to discuss our migration with Ryan Lerch (the lead of the Fedora Community Project to choose another forge) and he played a bit on his keyboard and out of nothing we had the 4 repos we talked about. It's currently still a proposal. We can change anything. But we have a living object for discussion. That simplifies things. And we can proceed with working them. Technically, everything is set up.

So you can see the ticket for this topic alternatively at

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/173

We should decide / agree upon:

c) The content of each repo.

a) The structure of our new space

b) The naming

d) When / how will we start with the new forge

I just saw your email about the repos

Yeah, I was glad that Ryan Lerch helped us a lot. Saved a lot of time.

Happy to see this planning move forward with Forgejo for the Server WG 👍️

ryanlerch++

jflory7 gave a cookie to ryanlerch. They now have 143 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle

Yes

ryanlerch: ++

pboy gave a cookie to ryanlerch. They now have 144 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle

Let's start with the structure

By the way, the "ticket" is a standard repo, too. But some UI elements, e.g. code, are hidden. We can activate them any time.

And all tickets in the 4 repos point to the same ticket list. But we can reconfigure it to have one or many repos there own ticket list.

The structure looks good to me. I'll play with it more during the weekend

excellent.

Just an info, a "Project" is a kanban board to organize the tickets. It's the same as in pagure.

!hi

John Himpel (jwhimpel)

hello, John

Welcome John !!!

proposed: !agreed: We start with a repo structure as proposed int ticket 173

Any objection / alternative proposal (note: we can reorganize any time proposed: !agreed: We start with a repo structure as proposed int ticket 173Welci

sounds good. It looks fine to me and we can always adjust

sh... c&p !

Any objection / alternative proposal (note: we can reorganize any time if something does not work out.

No objection

No, this looks like a good start

No objection to proposed structure, but at a later date would like to discuss a different workflow for ansible/code/etc (not docs)

!agreed: We start with a repo structure as proposed int ticket 173

John Himpel: Yes, we would restructure the Ansible repo and the workflow. We will have to work out the details.

Well, part b), the naming.

What is currently "issues" we had "WG conducts" or "WG matters" of "WG affairs". Everything happened so quickly this morning, I couldn't keep up. Hence the discrepancy in the name.

What is currently "issues" we had "WG conducts" or "WG matters" or"WG affairs". Everything happened so quickly this morning, I couldn't keep up. Hence the discrepancy in the name.

Maybe, issues is a bit to narrow. We might activate the WIKI later to have a space to discuss (instead or in addition to the current general wiki). But I'm not sure, is this would be a good idea. It fragments the information.

Wait a moment, maybe zodbot is sleeling again?

OK, without colon

proposed !agreed We keep the naming as is today, for now.

Emmanuel Seyman: are you typing? so says Matrix

No

OK, some issues are everywhere :-)

Any objection regarding the naming?

None for the moment

OK, no objection:

Next item, the structure of each repo.

The most relevant questions may be the issue list. Do we want one for ecverything or do we want to differentiate?

The most relevant questions may be the issue list. Do we want one for everything or do we want to differentiate?

Again, we can modify it any time.

I would have thought we would have a tracker dedicated to user docs

but that's just my initial thought. I won't make a scene about it.

I think, it makes sense. It is some work to separate the existing docs related tickets.

So we could use a separate ticket list for docs for new tickets, and word on the existing one on the "ticket" ticket-list.

That saves a lot of work.

So we could use a separate ticket list for docs for new tickets, and work on the existing one on the "ticket" ticket-list.

I have not looked at this in Forgejo yet, but one thing to consider is how you will build a view of issues across repos

I think Project boards might allow this, but I haven't experimented yet

I have had this problem with GitLab though, of getting issues across multiple related repos into a single, useful view, e.g. for planning team meeting discussions

Hm, that's a good point!

On GitLab, I took the approach of a single repo for tickets, and then disabled the issue tracker on other issues. So it was always obvious to someone where to go for opening an issue that will get seen and addressed by the team

Also a good thing to consider entrypoints for potential contributors or users who want to report things. If that is a use case you want to consider. Multiple repos can make it confusing, if it is not documented well where to go for what request

I don't know if this makes sense still in Forgejo world, however

Yes, so it makes probably sense to start with one ticket list and check out how it works for us.

I do like the idea of one repo for all things WG tickets… otherwise, you have to build really good habits of keeping an eye on multiple issue trackers

A project board can help with that, but I haven't experimented with it in Forgejo, so I plead ignorance here for now 😛

I hope, the project in Forgejo works better than the Board on pagure. The latter was always a bit cumbersome.

Agreed

GitLab too, for what it is worth 🤪

Anyways, I don't want to siderail! Just saw a bike shed I thought I could paint 🙂

roposed !agreed For the time being we use one issue list for everything. We will examine whether it proves effective.

proposed !agreed For the time being we use one issue list for everything. We will examine whether it proves effective.

Objections? Alternatives?

+1 from me

Agreed

OK, no objections 2,0,0

I suppose, we can keep the tickets repo as is. Maybe we have to adjust the tags a bit.

I will restructre both of the docs repos to the Antora required structure, i.e. to eliminate one subdirectory (docs and wg), so each start with modules.

And we restructure the Ansible repo later.

John Himpel: Could you make a proposal how to restructure?

at one of the next meetings.

I will attempt to put that together.

OK. so

proposed !agreed We keep the tickets repo as is

proposed !agreed We adjust the docs repos to the Antorra required structure.

proposed !agreed We restructure the Ansible repo later.

Does anyone know of a good tool to diagram filesystem structures?

I see no objection, so

John Himpel: a quick google search turns up https://www.sickrate.com/folder-structure-generator which actually looks useful

Emmanuel Seyman: +1

I used Lucidchart for this when I was in university, but it has been a while…

Well, remains the question when we will start with the new repo.

We are a bit dependent of the Docs team regarding the switch in the Fedora pages. Who can we ask of the Docs team?

We could start with the tickets at once.

YOU're asking US who to contact on the Docs team?

Just a joke ;-)

I guess we can make the switch early next week.

or better, I can make the switch

The restructure of the docs repo is just a mv command.

Ok opinion? So let's switch as soon as we can switch the docs pages to forge and freeze the pagure in the meantime?

freeze regarding docs content modification.

:agreed We switch as soon as we can switch the docs pages to forge and freeze the docs pages on pagure in the meantime

yes, please!

OK, that's it for this topic.

Shortly to:

Tracking issue: !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/164

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2396309

I'm still busy with the SBC Bug. It is currently still a blocker.

I have to connect a device to a seriell terminal to log the boot messages.

At the moment we don't need to decide anything of the alternatives we discussed previously.

Anything to add?

OK, the time is up, so let's skip the Walk through longterm open issues again and continue with a short Openfloor

topic 5. Open Floor

I did manage to get Peter Robinson's version of F43 to run an rpi5. It's missing several features yet, but enough works well to be interesting. Seems to be rather responsive when using.

Rpi5 ? Not Rpi4 ?

Emmanuel Seyman: Yes

Yes, I think th rpi5 is a great step forward compared to rpi4

The rpi5 solution is not official but in COPR, as far as I know

I will post a link to Peter Robinson's announcement on the Server mailing list.

John Himpel: I guess the arm-image-installer has also issues with installing the Server image?

Is indeed not a complete Fedora 43, but everything at his link is all available in Fedora.

Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs): Its not a server image (per se). It's more like desktop without graphics.

OK, I didn't that detail :-)

Anything else for now?

I'm goog

Good to be back. Hope to to be here in the future.

I'm good

John Himpel: we really missed you! So let's hope the best!

And wish you the best of health.

Well anything else to add?

John Himpel: Are you typing or is it fake news from Matrix?

Obviously Matrix is in error. I'm closing

3

2

1