[CentOS-devel] Xen/Xen4CentOS SIG

Fri Jan 17 18:01:07 UTC 2014
Lars Kurth <lars.kurth at xen.org>

let's see whether we can get any more feedback on this thread. I will 
pick this up after the board meeting and we can discuss some more stuff 
at FOSDEM too. I don't have a problem just formalizing Xen4CentOS as it 
is : I just wanted to raise the question, as now is probably the right 
time to verify assumptions.

On 17/01/2014 17:07, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi Lars,
> On 01/17/2014 12:45 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> congratulations on the RedHat/CentOS announcement. Sorry for responding
>> so late on SIGs: I was in China until recently and had no time to follow
>> up. There is definitely interest to continue the Xen (or Xen4CentOS) SIG
>> within CentOS, building on the Xen4CentOS work of last year. I want to
>> get the endorsement of the Xen Project Advisory Board for joining the
>> SIG at next Tuesday's board meeting. This will give an application (if
>> needed) extra weight. I don't expect any issues.
> thanks, and let us know how that goes.
>> The other question I have is whether we do need to re-apply
>> (http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup lists Xen4CentOS as a SIG
>> already) and what the format for an application would be other than
>> posting to this list. Maybe we ought to look at the naming of the SIG
>> and make it more generic to cover for future version changes in Xen as
>> well as targeting CentOS versions beyond CentOS 7 (which ought to be a
>> lot easier than CentOS 6 because we only need Xen and no custom kernel).
> imho, its worth going down the route of setting up a formal SIG in the
> present scope of things, although the code + content and release stuff
> is already out there in centos.org ( which might also make it a lot
> faster and easier, since we just need to realign the git repo and get
> some build metadata around it ).
>> Also, there would probably be practical issues on list naming, etc.
>> (Xen4CentOS is merged with CentOS-virt from a list perspective). I don't
>> have an issue with the status quo, but it may be cleaner for CentOS in
>> the long run if there was a clear SIG to list mapping.
> This came up recently in other conversations as well, the thinking was
> that as a sig matures and has community traction we can split lists away
> to be more sig focused. I'd imagine the entire Cloud / virt / hypervisor
> SIGs could start from the centos-virt list as homebase and then branch
> out. Having said that, most of the content on the centos-virt list at
> the moment IS xen specific.
> regards,