[atomic-wg] Issue #231 `clarify meaning of "rolling" for future fedora atomic releases`

jasonbrooks reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` The Atomic WG has unofficially paid attention to only a single fedora atomic release at a time, specifically, the release based on the current latest stable Fedora release. There's a proposal to

[atomic-wg] Issue #198 `move ostree ref to be "container-host"`

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > +1 for atomic-host. > How do we inform the users? Can we provide some kind of link to the old name > so that we don't break everything? I think if we don't plan to keep the old name around forever then we should just go ahead

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > > That said I think we're going to run into pungi issues here. Yes. This is modeled from the compose id, which takes the form of `Fedora-Atomic-25-20170215.1` with the date embedded in there. I think they did this for good

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

walters added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` I'd vote for images having a simple serial number - in the case where we have to respin the cloud image because we changed the kickstart but *not* the tree, we'd go from `-1` to `-2` or so. i.e.: ```

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Another alternative is that we shorten this by just including a shortcommit of the ostree commit id in the image name: ``` Fedora-Atomic-25-20170215.1.aabbccdd.x86_64.qcow2 ``` The negative is that OSTree version numbers are less

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` ok so let me flesh this out just a little more. Current proposal is something like `25.20170130.0` just for the OSTree *version* that is part of the ostree repo; i.e. the version you see when you run `rpm-ostree status`. Now we

[atomic-wg] Issue #228 `clarify policy on atomic host support for older Fedora "number" releases`

jasonbrooks added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` AFAICT, the thought is that rolling is a big disruptive thing, so we need to study it first. We are in fact not supporting N-1 now, so making that official isn't really a big deal. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

jasonbrooks added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` We should keep the major version number. It'll be useful for when we start "rolling." `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/229

[atomic-wg] Issue #180 `Future of Fedora Dockerfiles`

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` note is added to the repo and we have started converting popular ones to go through the fedora container review process. closing this `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` yes. more than once a day is a possibility that is why I added the number to the end: `20170130.0`, `20170130.1` So I think we are settling in on `year.month.day.serial` where serial is the increment for the number of the ostrees

[atomic-wg] Issue #169 `Spec for IRC bot to notify about blockers`

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` roshi wanted to take a look at this. removing from meeting agenda for now `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/169 ___ cloud

Meeting Minutes - February 22, 2017

#fedora-meeting-1: atomic-wg Meeting started by dustymabe at 17:05:08 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-02-22/atomic-wg.2017-02-22-17.05.log.html . Meeting summary

[atomic-wg] Issue #198 `move ostree ref to be "container-host"`

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` +1 for atomic-host in 26. We'll need to remember to do a big search-and-replace in the docs. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/198

[atomic-wg] Issue #198 `move ostree ref to be "container-host"`

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` +1 for atomic-host. How do we inform the users? Can we provide some kind of link to the old name so that we don't break everything? We're also going to need to do a big search-and-replace on the docs. `` To reply, visit the link

[atomic-wg] Issue #228 `clarify policy on atomic host support for older Fedora "number" releases`

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` In which case: if we're not supporting N-1, then what's the reason to not do a rolling release? `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/228

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

jasonbrooks added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Would there ever be more than one version per day? I don't see a problem w/ something like `25.17.0, 25.17.1, 25.17.2, 25.17.3` `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/229

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

sayanchowdhury added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` I second @jberkus, year/month/day is easier to read and interpret quickly. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/229 ___

[atomic-wg] Issue #229 `decide on version scheme and image naming scheme for f26`

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` I'd prefer year/month/day, simply because it's fairly difficult for users to figure out what serial number they want, but the date is easy. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email

Meeting Today

hey all, I am about to head to the airport. I'm hoping to make the meeting from the airport, fingers crossed. I added a few items to the meeting tag that I'd like the WG to discuss. - clarify policy on atomic host support for older Fedora "number" releases

[atomic-wg] Issue #160 `Ship fedora-motd in F24 atomic image`

rtnpro added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Fixed the following issues: - Don't cache update info from motdgen scripts, https://github.com/rtnpro/motdgen/commit/54c7571eb8616a413402bfb1c1ac033a5697bac9 - Replace cron jobs with systemd timer,

Re: Fedora Cloud AMIs are not readable

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Adam Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> There is an outstanding bug report >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1423753 that came up in >> the Fedora Server