On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:58:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> What this is sounding like is a huge discrepancy between what the
> Council, PRD group, etc. think we should be doing and what we can
> actually do.
>
> Given that, I think I should tell the designer to push the design
> changes back.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:13:02AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> It's not that simple - this is a messy topic. What I think this
> is about isn't delaying or blocking - it's *prioritization*. If
> an issue comes up in Anaconda or systemd or whatever
> that affects the "next AH", we need those
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:46:44AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> We need to be clear on the difference between considering it important
> for Atomic images to be ready on release day, and being "release
> blockers." The latter has a very specific meaning as Adam W can
> attest. Being a
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 04:05:24PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> As Dennis said, there are Atomic images produced nightly as part of the
> *regular* Branched composes. So you don't see any Fedora-Atomic-25-
> (foo) fedmsgs because there are no Fedora-Atomic-25 composes. There are
> just
On 10/04/2016 11:21 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> The corollary is that if the people who are supposed to be working and
> caring for an edition are not doing the work already, making it
> release blocking doesn't magically fix it. What happens instead is
> that people who are doing that work
Just an update on this. We're passed the kernel panic issue
now that dracut-fips was backed out, but we're now getting
a reboot loop due to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290659
- Original Message -
>
>
> On 10/03/2016 02:47 AM, Trishna Guha wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28,
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/04/2016 08:13 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
>>> > *indefinitely* block a six-month release
On 4 October 2016 at 13:59, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/04/2016 08:13 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
>>> > *indefinitely* block a six-month release with
On 10/04/2016 08:13 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> >
>> > I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
>> > *indefinitely* block a six-month release with a deliverable that can
>> > be fixed and re-released in two weeks.
>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
> *indefinitely* block a six-month release with a deliverable that can
> be fixed and re-released in two weeks.
It's not that simple - this is a messy topic. What I think this
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:14:43AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 5:01:52 PM CDT Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > On 09/30/2016 01:11 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM,
Hi,
Can you take a minute to give feed back on Fedora cloud talking points
here - hope have picked most relevant points and no errors, but
corrections welcome:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_25_talking_points#Fedora_Cloud
Thanks,
Benson
___
On Friday, September 30, 2016 5:01:52 PM CDT Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 09/30/2016 01:11 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Miller
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu,
On Monday, October 3, 2016 1:16:04 PM CDT Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 02:57 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> >> There is a kernel panic happening early in boot. Here is the serial
> >
> >> console log from one
On 30/09/16, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/30/2016 02:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > 16:44:56 Cloud base image is the only blocking deliverable.
> > 16:44:59 Atomic is not.
> >
> > I realize this WG is in the middle of rebooting itself, but to have
> > clearly conflicting information from the WG
On 16/09/16, Jan Kurik wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 04:14 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> may I request any feedback on this topic, and/or adding this topic to
> >> the next Cloud WG meeting agenda
16 matches
Mail list logo