dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` OK. Some time later - an update on this ticket
- Highlighting OSTree commits as the delivered artifact We will be setting an ostree version that corresponds to the pungi compose ID. See OSTREE_VERSION_FROM_LABEL_DATE_TYPE_RESPIN in https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/592. We are already using this for rawhide. - If we change the compose ID - what about Multi-Arch? We are not planning to change the compose ID any longer. Additionally with bodhi calling pungi we will be able to support multi-arch better. - pungi compose ids are inflexible Still using the same compose ID as in the past so no issues here - Getting rid of bodhi creation of ostrees planned and in progress: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/300 - Coupling ostree creation with image creation Since we are also planning to move mash to pungi we might as well add image/ISO creation to pungi and have it do everything all at the same time. This would mean we no longer have timing issues **Identified Action Items** 1. We can work on patches to pungi to accept an ostree version as input and know what to do with it. This would be a version that would be input for image creation, not necessarily for ostree tree compose creation. i.e. build a qcow image for ostree version 25.100 that is in the ostree repo. Assumes the ostree version already exists. Done. https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/592 2. We can work on patches to pungi to that can determine what the ostree version should be and set that during ostree tree compose time. See https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/575 Same as above 3. We need to provide to releng a script that can be run so they can "detect" what ostree version to specify as a compose id (I believe this assumes we keep ostree/image creation decoupled) No need. Just use OSTREE_VERSION_FROM_LABEL_DATE_TYPE_RESPIN 4. Determine priority of having bodhi call pungi to create ostrees high :) 5. We need to determine what we want the OSTree version to look like for Fedora 26 (right now the atomic WG proposal is `$majorversion.$year$month$day.$serial` `26.20170320.0`. Please comment in https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/229 We will get 26.20170320.0 6. Figure out if a compose id like `Fedora-Atomic-26-26.20170220.0_0` is possible and if anything breaks as a result. No Need `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/260 _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
