<div dir="ltr">Sounds good to me. We were working under that assumption already, but I just wanted to clarify! <div> </div><div>Thanks Brad!</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Brad Figg <<a href="mailto:brad.figg@canonical.com" target="_blank">brad.figg@canonical.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:54:26AM -0400, Andres Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Are we expecting to make all "edge" kernels available via MAAS, or should > MAAS just ignore the these for the time being ? > My $.02 .. The usage scenario I am thinking of is with a cloud customer that uses JuJu & MaaS for their deployments. They have a "development" cloud separate from their "production" cloud. They are running the rolling hwe kernel in production and want to start testing the next hwe kernel before they get it automatically. I think they need to be able to install that via JuJu & MaaS on their development cloud. Brad <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> > Thanks! > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Tim Gardner <<a href="mailto:tim.gardner@canonical.com">tim.gardner@canonical.com</a>> > wrote: > > > On 08/10/2016 09:40 AM, Brad Figg wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:37:34AM -0700, Brad Figg wrote: > > >> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:44:32PM -0700, Leann Ogasawara wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Leann Ogasawara < > > >>> <a href="mailto:leann.ogasawara@canonical.com">leann.ogasawara@canonical.com</a>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Tim Gardner < > > <a href="mailto:tim.gardner@canonical.com">tim.gardner@canonical.com</a>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 07/29/2016 10:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 08:40:46AM -0700, Tim Gardner wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 07/27/2016 08:04 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > >>>>>>>> We have been discussing some naming for new meta-packages to > > allow for > > >>>>>>>> automatic rolling upgrades between Hardware Enablement (HWE) > > kernels > > >>>>>>>> within the LTS series. This thread aims to firm those up. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Currently we have meta-packages of the following forms: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> linux{,-image,-headers,-signed,-tools}-<flavour>[-<variant>] > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The flavour then represents the primary use case for the kernel > > (for > > >>>>>>>> example generic and lowlatency) and the optional variant > > currently is > > >>>>>>>> used to identify the HWE kernels (lts-<series>). For example: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> linux-image-generic-lts-xenial > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The desire is to offer a rolling HWE kernel, this means a kernel > > >>>>> variant > > >>>>>>>> which is updated automatically to the latest available HWE kernel > > >>>>> within > > >>>>>>>> the LTS. We would expect that to update to the next HWE kernel at > > >>>>> each > > >>>>>>>> point release. We wish to offer this in two forms, rolling until > > we > > >>>>>>>> reach the next LTS release and continuing to roll after an > > upgrade. > > >>>>>>>> Finally we wish to be able to offer early accesss to these > > updates as > > >>>>>>>> soon as they are available for testing purposes. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> We are proposing the following variants: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -hwe-16.04 > > >>>>>>>> -hwe-rolling > > >>>>>>>> -hwe-16.04-early > > >>>>>>>> -hwe-rolling-early > > >> > > >> Personally, I don't like "early". I prefer "preview". > > > > > > Maybe "edge" as that's used by snappy and juju stores. I also like > > > the sound of "rolling-edge". > > > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> So for example: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> linux-generic-hwe-16.04 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> /me puts up some substantial scaffolding round his bikeshed. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -apw > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think the first 2 are fine. What is your intended use for > > "-early" ? > > >>>>>>> I'm reluctant to endorse something like "-early" if it isn't a > > release > > >>>>>>> requirement. Otherwise it'll get forgotten and grow stale. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The intent of -early is it updated on the same cadance as the main > > ones, > > >>>>>> but it switches from lts-Y to lts-Z on first availability rather > > than > > >>>>>> waiting for the point release. So they are the same much of the > > time, > > >>>>>> then when a new lts-Z is available that one will switch to it, we > > >>>>>> stablise it, and then the non -early one moves over to join it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -apw > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In the interest of bike shedding, perhaps "-dev" would be more > > >>>>> descriptive. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I like "-preview", anyone else want to pick a color? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Introducing some additional questions I've received from the MAAS team: > > >>> > > >>> Q: With those kernel names I assume the Debian package names will be > > >>> linux-hwe-16.04 and linux-hwe-rolling, correct? > > >>> A: I think we would also encode the <flavor> in there, eg. > > >>> linux-hwe-16.04-generic or linux-hwe-rolling-lowlatency. > > >>> > > >>> Tim, Andy, Brad, thoughts ^^? > > >> > > >> I agree we need <flavour>. I think for the preview it would be: > > >> linux-hwe-rolling-preview-<flavour> > > >> > > >> We are previewing the next roll not the next flavour. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Q: I was also wondering what the low latency kernels will be named and > > >>> whether they will have a rolling and early|dev|preview package as well? > > >>> A: If we are providing lowlatency as an HWE kernel (which we are), > > >>> lowlatency should also be rolling and have a preview package as well. > > As > > >>> for the specific naming, lets get consensus on the above. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Agree. > > >> > > >>> Q: Right now we have packages in Xenial using the name > > >>> linux-image-lowlatency-lts-<release>, I'm guessing that will change to > > >>> something like linux-lowlatency-16.04. > > >>> A: Actually, I assumed we would still deliver the > > >>> linux-image-<flavor>-lts-<release> as they are today. The new > > rolling meta > > >>> packages would then resolve to these. > > >>> > > >>> Tim, Andy, Brad, thoughts here too ^^? > > >> > > >> That was my thinking as well. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Q: Also do you have any idea of a time frame when the meta packages > > for all > > >>> of this will be released? > > >>> A: We've not selected a specific deadline to deliver these new meta > > >>> packages. I'd estimate end of Sept at the latest. Is there an earlier > > >>> date that you were hoping for? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Leann > > >> > > >>> -- > > > > Yeah, what Brad said. > > > > -- > > Tim Gardner <a href="mailto:tim.gardner@canonical.com">tim.gardner@canonical.com</a> > > > > > > -- > Andres Rodriguez > Engineering Manager, MAAS > Canonical USA, Inc. </div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">-- Brad Figg <a href="mailto:brad.figg@canonical.com">brad.figg@canonical.com</a> <a href="http://www.canonical.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.canonical.com</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> <div> </div>-- <div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Andres Rodriguez<div>Engineering Manager, MAAS</div><div>Canonical USA, Inc.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div> </div>