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

2017-02-23 Thread Colin Walters
walters added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Pungi issue here https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/544 `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/229 ___ cloud mailing list --

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

2017-02-23 Thread Josh Berkus
jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` "Up until this point I would say that upgrading from one major release to the next around "major release day" would have been a really rocky process that isn't necessarily something that people would want to happen without knowing

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

2017-02-23 Thread Dusty Mabe
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` @jberkus - i'm fully operating in many contexts. I'm thinking about many different use cases where systems are upgraded manually and where systems are upgraded automatically. What I would like to do is operate on a principle of

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

2017-02-23 Thread Jason Brooks
jasonbrooks added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > It feels weird to do semi-automatic rebases on the client side. Not saying > it's wrong. But we need to think a bit about how people manage automated > systems. > I guess my question here is - who wouldn't want a single

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

2017-02-23 Thread Jason Brooks
jasonbrooks added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > @jasonbrooks. at least one other possible interpretation of "rolling" is that > we consume from rawhide and don't take Number release content. This would > prevent "large change" upgrades like when going from f24 to f25, but

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

2017-02-23 Thread Josh Berkus
jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Walters: Yes, we need to plan out how we're going to deal with backwards compatibility issues (OverlayFS also comes to mind as a problem). `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email

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

2017-02-23 Thread Josh Berkus
jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` @jasonbrooks I am -1 to make desupporting the old ostree official without at least a plan (and a deadline) to move to rolling upgrades. See #231 for my explanation on why these two issues are inexorably tied together. `` To reply,

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

2017-02-23 Thread Josh Berkus
jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Dusty: You're thinking in terms of systems which are updated, individually, by hand. This is not how people admin most systems anymore, and definitely not what Atomic is for. Atomic is aimed at clouds of automatically managed

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

2017-02-23 Thread Colin Walters
walters added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` It feels weird to do semi-automatic rebases on the client side. Not saying it's wrong. But we need to think a bit about how people manage *automated* systems. I guess my question here is - who *wouldn't* want a single stream? I

Updated Container Guidelines

2017-02-23 Thread Honza Horak
Hi Adam & co., I think the container guidelines should include a section about the Layered Images used as a base for other Layered Builds. I've created an updated draft that also fixes label names to use the lower-case convention: