Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

On 09/15/2016 04:25 AM, Kushal Das wrote: > On 14/09/16, Adam Miller wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >>> >>> In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After >>> discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:47:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Seems a little conservative, but I'm not opposed. > > I've been under the impression that part of the point of the Two Week > > Release cycle was to be able to deliver new stuff faster and fix > > issues faster but playing it safe

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:55:16PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote: > For two week atomic we are not tied with the Fedora 25 release cycle. We > can enable it in our release when we think it is ready for the > consumers. It does not have to wait F26 release. For example we see it > is in good condition

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: [cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking +- Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: Keywords: |

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

On 14/09/16, Adam Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > > In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After > > discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend > > waiting to move to overlayfs as the

[cloud] #171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking

#171: [VOTE] To mark recent failure on Atomic images as non blocking + Reporter: kushal | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Future Component: --- | Keywords: